DNV Portal

How to consume and produce sustainably?

mette — Wed, 09 May 2012 19:12:50 +0000

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in collaboration with the European Commission, has recently published a report entitled 'The Global Outlook on SCP Policies. Taking an action together' . The main objective of this report is to share best practices globally through examples of effective policies. The document also proposes recommendations to adapt, replicate and scale up Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) initiatives. The report looks at areas such as energy, transport, food and waste management. It includes 56 cases studies of initiatives across the globe:

City sustainable consumption and production plan (Egypt)
Plastic bag waste management (Kenya)
Greening the supply chain (Thailand)
Water - free environmentally friendly sanitation (China)
Sustainability standards for housing (Brazil)
Energy efficient housing (Ukraine)
Sustainable clothing Action Plan (UK)
EU Ecolabel (Europe)

It is also interesting to note that the Global Outlook provides a set of recommendations that covers:

Integrate SCP into policy frameworks and strategic plans
Ensure the collection of more SCP data to measure policy effectiveness and track progress
Learn from experience to develop an optimal policy mix
Provide enabling policy frameworks to encourage business investments on SCP
Give more emphasis to the demand side to promote sustainable lifestyles
Enhance responsible marketing and media through policies and campaigns
Draw on and further develop partnerships among all actors and regions

These are all challenging issues in challenging times – but I’m optimistic about consumers demanding better products and producers innovating more sustainable solutions – meeting the expectations of tomorrow. Best regards, Mette

Growing confidence in LNG as a future marine fuel

larspetter — Fri, 04 May 2012 06:00:13 +0000

As part of a project to define the future design of container feeder ships for operation in the Baltic Sea, some of my colleagues have done a survey. They posed a set of questions to a range of ship operators in the Baltic Sea area, and some of the results are quite interesting from a LNG perspective. Other results may serve as weekend entertainment. Some of the top ranking priorities are quite obvious. It would be strange if “operating costs” and “fuel efficiency” didn't score rather high in a survey like this. Even in the shipping industry, which lives by its own set of economic indicators, this would be strange indeed. If you are a reader from a different industry you may notice that not all items brought forward appear very futuristic, e.g. “optimal fuel consumption over wide speed range” may sound obvious, but actually most ships are optimised for easy construction, which gives a quite different output. Not a popular finding among sailors I would guess, but “crew comfort” is among the lowest priorities. Perhaps this indicates that crew comfort is already at luxury level? Next, the survey asks the ship operators what future solution they will be more willing to consider. Here it is very encouraging to see the high score for dual fuel engines. Actually, it is a bit surprising; I thought the operators were more sceptics. The study also indicates that they are much more comfortable with “dual fuel” than “pure LNG”. I guess the option to switch back to “normal” makes it easier to dive into the novel solutions. It will be interesting to see how this develops in later surveys when LNG has become more of a business as usual solution. Container ships don’t want pods. We hear you, dear shipowners. And we conclude with a small contribution to the frustrating task of forecasting future fuel sources: The respondents are quite confident that “LNG will become an important or dominant fuel type for the Baltic trade”. It is good to see that we here at DNV are in tune with our customers. More information and analysis from the survey will be published next week. I’ll be sure to keep you posted. Enjoy the weekend!

FRACK OFF

selim — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:18:20 +0000

Will shale gas move offshore?

This April, the U.S. Geological Survey released its estimation of about 5600 tcf undiscovered natural gas resources lying outside the US. In the same time the British Geological Survey was quoted for estimations of UK offshore reserves of shale gas that could exceed 1000 tcf. Indeed, shale gas formations do not know borders nor shores (see map). If the distribution of offshore/onshore shale gas is 50/50 there may be more than 6000 tcf of additional offshore shale gas resources worldwide. These numbers are subject to speculations but the debate has been launched: will shale gas move offshore like conventional Oil&Gas did in the past?

Escape from New York

There are indeed many advantages for shale gas for moving offshore:

Offshore allow to escape from the "Not In My Back Yard issue". As seen recently in the state of New York or France - which shale gas reserves by the way are estimated to be the second largest in Europe and with maybe the best shale gas geology in the world - if local opposition is strong, it may be impossible to even explore for shale gas. This is not a French exception or typical to shale gas and the same thing happened for gold in Switzerland.
Gas leak, which has been identified as a major concern in the onshore shale gas value chain does not present the same risk level offshore.
Seismic data acquisition offshore may be easier than some onshore areas with complex topography.
Induced seismicity is not a showstopper offshore (see picture below)

Now when it comes to available technology for offshore shale gas Exploration & Production, we may have to wait some years before we can see the lean manufacturing oriented “gas fabric” shale gas machine working offshore. “Historically, it has taken at least 25 years for any new energy type to conquer 1% of the global market” says Peter Vosel Shell’s CEO so it could take years before we see a “drill, frac, produce” designed shale gas vessel operating. Moreover the problem of storing the gas and transporting it to the market may turn out to be tricky, though small scale LNG, small GTL and new natural gas conversion technologies (see video below) are emerging….or by the time offshore shale gas vessels are sailing there may be offshore gas pipelines already in the area.

For a Few Dollars More

At the end, money may have the last word. The cost of production (COP) of shale gas offshore may be multiple times higher than what it is today onshore. Assuming an onshore shale gas COP of $2/MBTU and being 5 times more expensive to move offshore, this would lead to an offshore shale gas COP of $10/MBTU. This is in the range of some Arctic or Deepwater natural gas COP. Will shale gas stay onshore when everybody is moving offshore (oil, gas, wind, etc) ? We should have the answer soon enough.

LNG bunkering in Singapore

larspetter — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 02:13:01 +0000

For the implementation of LNG as a marine fuel for deap sea vessels, Singapore appears to be the key location to get the ball rolling. Already for quite some time, many eyes have been watching the development of LNG bunkering at the SLNG terminal. I didn't have the chance to attend the ongoing Bunkerspot conference myself, so I have to rely on Platts for their account of the discussions about the development of LNG bunkering. As usual I feel the need to clarify some issues.

"Participants polled at the Bunkerspot LNG Asia conference were skeptical of LNG bunkering gaining traction in Singapore in the next five years, but were more positive when given a longer time frame of 10 years"

This is human psychology, isnt it? A big change is happening in the industry - it is easy to assume it will take a while. Let's kick the can down the road. Nobody can blame us for not taking action. Anyway, surely they have some arguments backing this expectation:

""There are compelling reasons for LNG to become the future fuel for shipping...but there are also a good number of reasons why it may not become the future fuel for shipping for some time," Nigel Draffin said, Chairman of the International Bunker Industry Association"

Well, for one thing, IBIA is biased in this matter as their existence relies on the use of oil. Secondly, let's see what is really meant by "a good number of reasons...": Reason no 1:

"LNG terminals are designed to handle one vessel a week, not one per hour... LNG terminals should not be assumed to be hosts for bunker vessels..."

I completely agree, and this has also been acknowledged by all the industry projects that I have been involved in - none of them assume bunkering directly at the terminal premises. There needs to be a barge or other ways of transferring LNG to a bunkering station. This is also line with normal bunkering practices for oil, where the bunkers normal come to the ship, and not the other way around. Therefore reason no 1 is invalid, as no plans have been made for bunkering directly at terminal premises. Reason no 2:

"A huge new market for LNG [in terms of LNG bunkering] is emerging at a time when there is insufficient supply to cater to current LNG demand"

This is simply incorrect. Supply meets demand for LNG, as it always has and always will. What this really is, is only a discussion of price. Who is willing to pay more for the LNG? And that may very well be the ships. Which also makes sense from an environmental point of view; power on land can be produced by other sources, even renewables. For ship fuel, LNG is the cleanest option we have. Reason no 3:

"In addition, Regan pointed out that one Achilles' heel that Singapore faced was that the country had no LNG bunker barges to begin with"

Oh, come on. Is it really going to push the development down road for ten years because we cant build a few barges? Reason no 4:

"there are challenges which are not only unique to Singapore in terms of LNG bunkering, which various speakers at the event brought up, including high costs of vessels and infrastructure..."

As I have pointed out before, the emphasis on CAPEX is highly exaggerated. Investment decisions should be made based on cash flow models for the entire life cycle. And in such calculations, cost of fuel will be the overshadowing parameter for any ship, while CAPEX will only contribute 10-20% of total daily costs. Reason no 5:

"... lack of international standards "

This is a lame excuse. Firstly, there are standardisation going on through several joint industry projects, and also an ISO committee. Secondly, the lack of international standards is not a show stopper. It normally just means that an extra risk analysis needs to be done, and some additional communication with flag and port states will be necessary. Reason no 6:

"uncertainty about future pipeline gas and LNG prices"

Ok, what about the uncertainty about future oil prices? And especially prices of low sulphur fuel? It should be clear to everybody that fuel price uncertainty going forward will not only be about the absolute values of each fuel, it will also be about the relative difference between them. To conclude, nothing of the reported discussions from the Bunkerspot conference shakes my confidence in LNG as a future marine fuel.

Competition: What do these two ships have in common?

larspetter — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:58:35 +0000

Managing risks and seizing opportunities in renewables in Africa

bjorn — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:16:53 +0000

African countries are on the verge of an economic breakthrough and offer great opportunities for those seeking to turn risk into reward in an increasingly complex global economy. China has grasped these opportunities and Norwegian public and private enterprises could do so too. The scene is set for a win-win situation. If risks are managed in a good way, there will be rewards - both for African nations on a path to reaching their development potential and for Norwegian and international public and private enterprises seeking to achieve returns on their investments while at the same time contributing to a sustainable future for Africa.

: Tables have turned in the global economy

In a new paper, which was recently published in a report by WWF Norway, I share my reflections on Chinese investments in Africa, the opportunities this implies for Norwegian renewable energy actors, and how the investments risks can be managed.

-Bjørn Haugland

Natural gas - the bridge to where?

larspetter — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 05:52:55 +0000

If you havent already seen the TED speach by T. Boone Pickens, you should get to it. Mr Pickens is a bit more focused on US national security than I would be, but otherwise he delivers an excellent description of the current energy situation. Although his story is US centric, its main message is applicaple to any place in the world: We need to get off coal and oil! And the alternative is natural gas. It is abundant, it is low cost, and it is much cleaner. Clean enough? Well, that's another question. And this question leads Pickens to admit that natural gas is just a "bridge" fuel, a bridge fuel to whatever comes next. Pickens doesnt know what that is, and he says at his age he doesnt need to worry about it - someone younger must figure it out. Now, Mr Pickens is a smart man, so if he doesnt know what comes after natural gas, then probably nobody knows. If we take a closer look, the only alternatives that I can see in the long run is electricity or hydrogen, these two energy carriers could pontentially offer zero emissions and still meet world demand, provided that the energy needed to generate electricity or hydrogen are renewable, or at least offers zero emissions. And this is theoretically possible if we allow the use of nuclear power. Wind and solar can deliver a large amount of energy, but they are intermittent sources so nuclear will probably be needed to balance the system. Someone would probably bring up biostuff here, but the problem with bio is that it is not really scalable. At least none of the bioenergy sources I have seen have the potential of covering any significant share of world energy demand, unless we are willing to dedicate areas the size of continents to produce bio feedstock. Based on currently available technology, and the outlook for technology development, it is very difficult to see what is on the other side of that bridge. So that leaves us with a sort of philosophical question; is it really a "bridge" fuel if we dont know where it lands? For myself, I am very much result oriented as they call it in all the personality tests. And typical for result oriented people is a need to see at least the contours of a solution - we dont like to get going and make road as we move. So I need to find an answer I believe in - a draft version of sustainable future energy mix. I'll ask Twitter for help, follow my account to see how it goes.

100 years of diesel ships

larspetter — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:35:40 +0000

This month marks the 100th anniversary of MS Selandia, which embarked on its maiden voyage from Copenhagen to Bangkok on 22nd February 1912. She was a cargo ship dedicated for a route between Scandinavia, Genoa, and Bangkok. And as she was built in times when great glory was associated with shipping, she had luxurious cabins for 20 first class passengers. What was special about MS Selandia was that she was the first diesel powered ship, being propelled by two eight-sylinder diesel engines and twin screw propellers. Compared to the coal fired steam plant the ships of her time used, the diesel engine offered huge benefits: - Much longer sailing distance - Much less soot and heavy emissions - Much cleaner engine rooms and better working conditions for the crew - Better economics (they say this, but I dont know the details of oil and coal prices of that time) Looking back, it is hardly surprising that this superiour performance would motivate a transition of the entire shipping industry towards diesel. But shipping is slow to move and it took about 40 years before the last coal fired ship in international trade was scrapped. But there are some domestic areas in the world that hasnt seen much development in their shipping sectors, inland waterways in the US for example, and from what I hear there might actually still be one or two coal fired steam ships out there. The steam turbines on the other hand, have certainly outlived the coal fired boilers, and have been in use to this day, particularly on gas tankers. Today, the steam turbines might see something of renaissance as they may offer high efficiency and much reduced maintenance when natural gas is used as fuel. Apropos natural gas and LNG - is it just me? or do you see some parallells here? The first LNG fuelled ship, Glutra, was launched in 2001, and offers much the same benefits over diesel as diesel offered over coal a hundred years ago, except the longer sailing distance. In other words, we are already 11 years into the transition from diesel to LNG. MS Selandia is being tributed with three floors of exhibition at the Diesel House in Copenhagen. We'll see if the next 29 years won't send another 60 000 diesel fuelled ships to the museums.

LNG for small scale electricity generation

larspetter — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:42:56 +0000

At DNV, we have recently finalized a study looking at various aspects of implementing LNG as the main fuel supply for distributed power generation and microgrid systems. The study covers key challenges, environmental and economical assessments, as well as a case study for Indonesia. Over the past year or so we have gotten increasing amounts of questions related to using LNG for all sorts of small scale application. Just a few years ago, if you were building a small scale power plant either for an isolated island or for dedicated industry use, the default fuel supply would be heavy fuel oil or diesel products. If you have this need today, you are likely to search for other alternatives as oil based fuels are becoming very expensive. Very often, the most promising alternative is natural gas. This study provides an overview of all the components of the required supply chain and the key technical and logistical solutions. Technical challenges with implementing LNG fuelled power generation in microgrids are presented and assessed, and a framework for economical and environmental comparison of such power generation with conventional systems is provided. A clear conclusion from the study is that by aggregating demand from small consumers that are off grid (industrial and communities on by micro grids), significant environmental benefits can be achieved in a way that in most scenarios also will save money. The study was co-led by Dr. Sanjay Kuttan, Director at DNVs Clean Technology Center in Singapore. The full report can be downloaded here.

Corruption in the EU

mette — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:50:10 +0000

The European Commission has recently published a Eurobarometer report on Corruption in the EU. The publication presents results of a survey carried out in the 27 EU Member States in September 2011. The main aim of this research was to see how European citizens’ opinions about corruption have changed since 2009 when a similar survey was carried out. The questions asked during the survey focused on the European citizens’ perception of the extent of corruption in the EU, the levels of government (local, regional, national) facing the biggest problem with corruption, the correlation between corruption and business culture, and also their views about who should be responsible for fighting corruption. The main outcomes of the survey are the following:

The majority of respondents think that corruption is a major problem in their country (less positive than in 2009) and almost half think that corruption in their countries has increased in the last three years
Most respondents think that corruption exist at all levels – local, regional and national and 73% of them think that corruption takes place within the EU institutions
The majority of respondents think that there is an insufficient level of transparency and supervision of the financing of political parties
Two in three Europeans sees corruption as part of their country’s business culture
The institutions that Europeans are most likely to think have a responsibility for fighting corruption are national Government (63%) and judicial system (59%)

In the press release of 15 February presenting the report, the Commission highlighted its previous policy initiatives on fighting corruption. In more detail, in June 2011 an anti-corruption package was adopted calling for a stronger focus on corruption in all relevant EU policies. Since then, the Commission established a specific EU monitoring and assessment mechanism and will publish in 2013 the first EU Anti-Corruption Report, which will give an account of the state of play of anti-corruption efforts in EU Member. To assist in the works on this report, the Commission established also a group of experts on corruption that advises the Commission on issues related to establishing indicators, assessing Member States’ performance, identifying best practice, proposing new measures. You can find the list of experts here: http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/crime/List_of_selected_experts-Group_of_Experts_on_corruption.pdf. You can also find the whole report here: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_374_en.pdf The Commission also plans to set up a network of research correspondence that will complete the work of the expert group by collecting and processing information at national level. The EU anti-corruption policy also includes proposals for legislation in the following areas: confiscation of criminals' assets, the reform of public procurement rules, more advanced statistics on crime and an enhanced anti-fraud policy at the European level. In DNV we believe in handling fraud and corruption before it happens. Few things have such a profound and detrimental impact on the reputation as fraud and corruption. Few companies have so sound practices that they can ignore risks related to unethical business behaviour. However, there is a way to build a shield. We call it the corporate integrity profile. It delivers an independent assessment of how robust your business culture is and your ability to manage risks – and a road map for how to improve transparency and integrity. We help your organisation with risk mapping, preventive measures, code of conduct implementation, “Think-as-a-Thief” workshops, dilemma training, monitoring and compliance reporting. It’s all about trust.

Supply Chain: The New Frontier for Sustainability Risk

thomas-gosselin — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:34:24 +0000

An estimated 3,200 companies will feel the effects of The California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010 which entered into force on January 1, 2012. The law requires retailers and manufacturers with annual worldwide gross receipts that exceed USD $100 million and doing business in the state of California to provide information regarding their efforts to eliminate slavery and human trafficking from their supply chains. Furthermore, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is expected to adopt the final rules of Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act covering the requirements for managing conflict minerals in the supply chain. For a significant number of companies in the U.S., there will be challenges in adapting to these two recent pieces of legislation addressing supply chain operations. Picture the likes of Nike, Levi’s, HP and Disney with their established supplier management programs, their risk mapping, their audit programs and the resulting increased levels of transparency that are the inevitable outcome. For companies such as these, overlaying the supply chain risks emerging from these recent regulatory requirements (of higher immediate consequence and probability) on existing supply chain risk analysis will pose considerable challenges and dilemmas. It is increasingly clear that the roles of sustainability and supply chain officer are co-dependent. In some cases, the sustainability officer may own the risk whereas the supply chain officer will address the control of the risk. This, in itself, raises a barrier to implementation. In implementation, aside from the risk ownership and control, addressing sustainability risks throughout the supply chain already poses interesting dilemmas. These risks can be at odds with traditional procurement risks of cost, availability, lead times, quality and aspects of business continuity. Is management adequately equipped with the resources to balance these risks in an increasingly constrained supply base? If we highlight the electronics industry as an example, with its deep-dive into the supply chain beyond Tier 1 to control a myriad of risks, no less the risk to innovation, the term co-dependency is never truer. Circumstances have already manifested where the provision of certain vital components are constrained to less than a handful of possible suppliers; none of whom have emerged unscathed by risk on the supply chain dashboard. The efforts and direct costs of controlling these risks are often omitted from compliance cost estimations and the cost of alternative sourcing is hardly ever factored in. Our fear is that the lack of a clear supply chain risk profile will lead to trade-offs. Certainly, this will be the case should the sustainability officer and the supply chain officer work in risk silos. However, we also see a clear opportunity, if done well, for these two functions to ensure that their organization’s supplier risk profile is complete, credible and accountable to itself, not least to the wider stakeholder community. We also see that this will bring additional opportunities for early warning, where effective tools will allow a proactive approach to controlling the risks. Early and staged intervention may be required at some established suppliers, and engagement and enablement may be more appropriate in other instances where suppliers may have to be qualified. But all this, as said, is applicable to the larger companies with established supply chain management programs addressing sustainability risks through voluntary social responsibility and environmental efforts. For the vast majority of the 3,200 companies affected by the California law, as well as those companies (and their suppliers) affected by the conflict minerals legislation on a national level, these new laws are likely to be a rude awakening. Initially, to the majority of affected companies these laws may be considered purely compliance issues, but it is expected that such increased transparency is likely to be thin end of the wedge, exposing not only the companies themselves, but also their suppliers to greater scrutiny and oversight. Will these companies be far-sighted enough to prepare for this? We hope so.

Key Sustainability Risks and Challenges in the Telecommunications Sector

priti — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:15:10 +0000

In a sector where the next revolution is just around the corner, the Telecoms industry is characterised by high rates of innovation in a rapidly changing technological landscape. This in turn is associated with a vast array of sustainability risks and challenges for Telecoms service providers. The Telecoms sector has been revolutionising at a furious rate, especially so in the past few decades, with the widespread introduction of the internet, followed by mobile phones and more recently the transition to using smartphones and smart meters, which has led to an increase in mobile data services. New technologies, rapidly changing consumer requirements, the need for continuously modernising infrastructure to keep pace with these requirements, peaking demand in mature markets, countered by rapid advancement in emerging markets and increased outsourcing of services present a number of sustainability challenges for Telecoms service providers. DNV works extensively in the Telecoms sector, carrying out H&S and ethical supply chain audits, assisting organisations with putting in place frameworks for identifying and managing their supply chain risks, training suppliers to embed sustainability within their own supply chains, and DNV’s International Sustainability Rating System (ISRS), which includes requirements of ISO14001, ISO9001, SA8000 and other international standards within one comprehensive system, is widely used. Based on our extensive project experience and through discussions with key sustainability personnel in some of the world’s largest Telecommunications companies, I have summarised what I think are the key sustainability risks in the Telecoms sector associated with 4 key categories: Environment, H&S, Supply Chain and general Corporate Responsibility requirements. Understanding and addressing these risks and integrating the most material ones within an organisation’s strategic and operational risk management processes would help convert these risks into opportunities, facilitating business continuity and enabling long term success in a rapidly changing sector.

Success in Durban cannot disguise need for climate adaptation

stuart — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:15:50 +0000

DNV's Bjørn Kj. Haugland argues the case for a risk-based framework for tackling unavoidable climate risks Last month, the world’s heads of state, government, industry and NGOs met in Durban, South Africa, to discuss our common future. These climate negotiations were more successful than many people had feared. A new international climate agreement will enter into force in 2020. This agreement makes life more predictable for industry and supports a future based on low-carbon technology. But we cannot rest on our laurels because– irrespective of political processes – climate forces are wreaking havoc everywhere, both in Norway and worldwide. The authorities are drowning in information but lack knowledge about how to adapt to the climate changes we are already facing. A number of Native Americans in the town of Kivalina in the wilds of Alaska are currently suing oil and energy companies, accusing them of destroying the basis of Kivalina’s life. The town depends on ice formations which protect it against the massive forces of nature which ravage Alaska’s coast. The problem is that the ice has melted dangerously fast over the past few years. Even in 2006, the US authorities’ research results showed that the little society had to be relocated as a result of global warming. The so-called “climigration” lawsuit that is currently taking place in the USA may be the first of many actions for damages in which companies are made responsible for the negative effect that their operations have on the climate of local communities. A new UN report shows that man-made climate change has already led to extreme weather in the form of heat waves and flooding. Thailand is a country that has over the past few weeks become painfully aware of how catastrophic amounts of rain can destroy the basis of existence for millions of people. Here in Norway, we were reminded of nature’s inexorable forces when Hurricane Berit struck local communities along the Norwegian coast, leading to major destruction. Norwegian municipalities are now being urged to implement measures to adapt to the extreme weather resulting from climate change. There is widespread anger, frustration and disappointment about politicians and other decision-makers. The authorities, on the other hand, are drowning in information on climate change but lack knowledge about how to deal with the risks they are facing. Enormous losses Optimists state that the financial crisis prevented some of the negative developments in CO2 emissions over the past few years. But to be hard and brutal – although the financial crisis may have led to lower emissions of climate gases in industrialised countries, the opposite has been true in a number of developing countries. The world’s total accounts – and they are what count – are negative. And there is little to indicate that the emissions will not rise sharply again as soon as the wheels are in motion – as they did in 2010. Our changing climate is threatening infrastructure, health and agriculture and leading to enormous losses for society. This is without doubt the greatest challenge the world is facing today. We must act The climate negotiations in Durban - which were saved at the last minute - were a partial victory for our common climate. A new international climate agreement is to be negotiated by 2015 and enter into force in 2020. At the same time, a new climate fund is to be established, there is to be a further commitment to the carbon markets and it is to be profitable to implement ways to prevent deforestation. These are important measures, not least because they make life predictable for industry and pave the way for a future based on low-carbon technology. The time has come for action. Authorities, industry and NGOs must now do their best to follow up the obligations imposed in Durban a few weeks ago. And they must follow up previously agreed national and international obligations. Examples of these are the green development mechanisms and initiatives such as REDD+. But this is not enough. The Executive Secretary of the UNFCC is one of many who have stated that adaptation to climate change is an important part of the solution to the climate crisis. A risk-based framework The authorities have more than enough information about extreme weather and destruction. The problem is not access to information – it is confidence. How are we to relate to all the information we are constantly being bombarded with? How are we to make good, strategic decisions based on the prevailing information at our disposal? The answer is to adopt a risk-based approach in decision-making processes and when implementing decisions. With the correct use of a risk-based framework, an important step is taken towards safeguarding assets and resources for this and future generations. Adapting to climate change is about seeing the overall picture – about building on experience and utilising expertise in different areas, such as climate research, economics, politics and engineering. We have repeatedly seen that those who succeed are those who handle their risks using an integrated, risk-based framework. Important prerequisites for the success of such projects are that they must be based on climate models that are suitable for the geographical area where the project is to be carried out and that public authorities, economists and engineers cooperate in the planning and implementation work. Climate negotiations The Executive Secretary of the UNFCC Christina Figueres made the following statement during the negotiations in Durban: “The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has never been higher, the number of people who have lost their livelihood as a result of climate change has never been greater and the need for action has never been more essential or achievable”. The Native Americans in Kivalina live closer to nature than most of us. When they shout a warning, the world should listen. Not least the decision-makers and politicians that have just returned home from Durban. The wisdom preached by the Native Americans in Kivalina is simple but strong: “We did not inherit the Earth from our forefathers, we are borrowing it from our children.” Bjørn Kj. Haugland, Chief Technology and Sustainability Officer DNV

You know your reputation is important

simon-king — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:34:05 +0000

We know from our experiences working with larger organisations that they are the ones who are more likely to recognise that their reputation is so important that they “allow” it to appear among their top corporate risks. The big question is however: When Board members and senior executives say that maintaining their reputation is important; do they really understand how their reputation is impacted? Many will see their reputation as being impacted by negative comments in the press. They may even assess this impact in terms of whether the criticism is local or national, and how long it lasts. But do they fully understand the complex dependencies within their business processes that could cause the actions or inactions that receive criticism? Yes, there are differences between brand and reputation. And there is a lot that people do to project positive images of what they do. But is all the effort clearly focused, and are there plans in place to address actual concerns of stakeholders with deeds? Does effort get wasted window dressing the perceived or typical concerns of stakeholders? This could seem to drive organisations down a rather narrowly focused approach to managing a sub-set of risks, but two things should stop this:

The most successful companies plan and act consistently on a much wider range of risks than this. It may be getting a tired cliché, but enterprise wide risk management helps to put the right effort into the right places.
Sustainability is a long term game. The immediate impacts of something going wrong may not be on your reputation, your wider stakeholders, or your longer term strategic objectives. If something really goes wrong the impact could be long and far reaching.

Imagine doing a post mortem on your organisation, looking back and seeing what you could have prevented going wrong. How could you have done things differently? It really helps if you can see what the important things really are, and make sure that the right things get done at the right time! SK

Clustering and Interconnection of offshore wind could save Northern Europe €27 billion

christopher — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:04:14 +0000

This is the conclusion in the final report from the OffshoreGrid project, a scientifically based techno-economic study of an offshore grid in Northern Europe within the Intelligent Energy Europe program. The report states that more than 1/3 of all offshore wind power projects (321 in total) should be clustered in hubs, with only a single transmission line to shore (being in most cases a High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) link). The clustering would lower investment costs from €83 billion to €69 billion up to 2030, compared to connecting each of the wind farms individually to shore. In addition, by interconnecting several hubs to form a multi-terminal HVDC grid, system benefits of €21 billion over a 25 year period could be generated for an additional investment of app €8 billion. In total this adds up to savings of €27 billion (see figure below).

HVDC transmission for wind power could soon reach 1 GW

The clustering of wind parks into larger hubs is well underway in the German North Sea. ABB recently won an order worth around $1 billion from the Dutch-German transmission system operator TenneT to supply the Dolwin2 HVDC transmission link connecting offshore North Sea wind farms to the German mainland grid. The 900 MW HVDC converter and cable system, operated at ±320 kV, is to be installed by 2015. This project follows the 800 MW Dolwin1 link scheduled for 2013 and the 400 MW Borwin1 which was installed in 2009. Siemens is also installing multiple transmission links off the German coast, notably the 864 MW SylWin link scheduled for 2014, the 800 MW BorWin2 and the 576 MW HelWin1 links both scheduled for 2013. The offshore platforms SylWin alpha and DolWin alpha are both being certified by Det Norske Veritas (DNV).

Breaking the current in a HVDC grid is no longer a showstopper!

The lack of a HVDC circuit breaker is by many seen as the most pressing technical showstopper to a multi-terminal HVDC grid. However, in a paper published at a Cigré conference in September this year, ABB claims to have successfully tested a hybrid HVDC breaker concept that provides ultrafast breaking capability - within 2 milliseconds – and maximum breaking current up to 16 kA (16 000 Ampere). ABB states that such a breaker could soon be commercially available for HVDC grids rated at ±320 kV.

HVDC VSC reaches voltage level of 500 kV

All the HVDC links mentioned earlier are based on Voltage Source Converter (VSC) technology. The Skagerak 4 interconnector between Norway and Denmark – scheduled for 2014 – will break a new record for VSC voltage. At 500 kV, the link will provide 700 MW of transmission capacity in a single cable (a ±500 kV link would be able to support twice the power capacity, or 1400 MW). In fact, it is not the VSC converter that is limiting the maximum voltage, but rather the HVDC cables. The Skagerak 4 project will use Mass Impregnated (MI) cables, but in the future it is expected that polymeric extruded HVDC cables will take over also on the highest VSC voltage levels. All in all, the outlook for an offshore grid is much more positive than it was just a year ago. Now coordination challenges are in the hands of EU – and national decisions makers – to sort out the many regulatory issues that stand in the way, such as the incompatibility of national support schemes for offshore wind power!

Angry Bird – Green PIGS

selim — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:33:10 +0000

Germany could pounce on green PIGS power for import …

Can the PIGS (Portugal, Greece, Italy and Spain) revive their economies through renewable energy projects? The Greek Prime Minister George Papandréou thinks so and predicts a shiny future for renewable energies. He is currently promoting investments from international companies into wind and solar power projects. Greece has just announced a new €1.3 billion budget for the building of a PV solar plant capable of producing 450 MW. These billion-euro renewable projects occur more and more often with an “Oil & Gas” business model of exporting energy to the relevant markets. This announcement was made only a few days after the Greek prime minister confirmed the intention of Germany to buy Greek sun power by importing electricity produced in Greece. The PIGS countries could indeed provide 1750 TWh/y of renewable electricity to Germany and Europe. This is 50 % of Europe electricity demand.

50 % of Europe electricity from green PIGS power

Germany is particularly interested into importing climate friendly electricity after its decision to progressively phase out nuclear power, which emits no or few climate gases. To import green electricity, Germany has already bet on eventually building an HVDC transmission grid to export solar power from the Sahara with the Desertec concept (see featured video on YouTube). However the Arab spring and the sovereign debt crisis could lead Germany to pounce on the PIGS’s green energy potential. To answer to this challenge and revive its economy, Greece is already thinking about installing 20 000 hectares of solar power for a total budget of €20 billion. If this kind of initiative is pursued in the PIGS countries with all other renewable energy sources (wind, wave & tidal, biomass, geothermal, etc) it could economically provide 50 % of Europe electricity. This could generate 1.2 million jobs.

An Oil & Gas approach to Renewables

The PIGS countries could become central to the renewable energy strategy in Europe. Having an “Oil & Gas” business model of extracting renewable energy where it is cheap and abundant to export it to relevant markets where energy price is much higher may be counter-intuitive for the renewable power sector. However the Oil & Gas sector has a proven track record of managing multi-billion euros energy projects in countries where corruption, bureaucracy and sovereign debt are much more acute than in the PIGS countries.

PIGS Green Champions

One may wonder what will happen to the PIGS countries' electricity mix and the development of local renewable technology champions? Well, when Standard Oil of California (now Chevron) went overseas to Saudi Arabia in the 1930s to secure and extract cheap oil, it did not imagine that half a century later it would have to compete with local Saudi Aramco, now the largest oil producer. Without having to go through the experience of nationalization of renewables, the PIGS countries could still follow an “Oil & Gas” scenario with the emergence of local renewable champions in the next decades. These local champions could then provide affordable renewable power to their economies and expand worldwide. Spain and Italy may already have theirs with companies like Iberdrola and Enel.

Climate changes require new planning routines

stein — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:14:51 +0000

A changed climate represents a changed risk picture for society and industry. We have the tools for planning for the future – a future that is uncertain – we must simply start to use them… This summer has given us a taste of the expected effects of future climate changes - flooding, landslides and closed roads and railway lines due to the infrastructure not being able to cope with the new environmental conditions. We need to improve the way in which we plan – especially when we are going to invest in infrastructure that is to last for several decades. However, the future is uncertain and what we have to plan for is far from clear. In such a setting, risk-based adaptation to climate changes will be an important tool. In the current debate, it seems as if the interest in climate challenges has diminished and is being overshadowed by more urgent problems, such as the financial crisis and unemployment. In the USA, climate change has become more or less a term of abuse and we see tendencies towards climate sceptics gaining ground in Europe too. However, it is quite certain that the climate is changing and it is overwhelmingly probable that the changes are caused by human activity. Unfortunately, the climate processes have probably come so far that we can hardly avoid a change in the global average temperature and thus subsequent changes in weather patterns. We must thus be prepared for new, changed environmental strains on infrastructure in the decades to come. When planning for several decades into the future, we must admit there is a great deal of uncertainty about what the future will hold – both globally and locally. We are actually facing several layers of uncertainty:

Climate-related uncertainties: what will the future greenhouse-gas concentrations be in the atmosphere – and will other climate drivers change? At a local level, it is uncertain how local variations and physical factors will affect future weather patterns. The global climate models are not sufficiently advanced that they can predict what will happen in a little coastal town or local valley.
Uncertainty regarding the effect on existing and planned infrastructure. Might we experience new damage mechanisms, how will older facilities be able to cope with changed strains and how can different types of infrastructure influence the course of events in extreme weather situations?
Uncertainty linked to how we can develop and implement measures to adapt society to the expected effects of the future climate. This is not least dependent on economic growth, financial strength, budgets, population growth, new technology, etc.

Based on the uncertain picture that has been outlined, the most efficient way of adapting to climate is to adopt a risk-based approach to the problem. We are facing a decision-making problem which requires us to deal systematically with the uncertainties ahead of us and requires the various scenarios to be weighed up against each other. Such an approach to decision-making problems has been developed over the past 40 years and has become completely normal in sectors where the consequences of making the wrong decision can be disastrous. However, there is one challenge which we must take into account. In normal risk-based approaches, the risk analyst will want to base his or her assessments on historical experience, and the more information there is from stable systems, the more accurate the predictions about the future. This is a challenge when planning for a climate that is changing. Weather forecasts are becoming more and more outdated as the climate changes, and may lead to us underestimating the future risks facing vulnerable infrastructure which we want to function for several decades to come. Studies of, for instance, the expected frequency of storms in New York have shown that the official statistics, which on the whole are not adjusted to take account of climate changes, very probably underestimate the number of future storms over the city. If there are so many uncertainties about the future, many people may ask whether it is possible to plan for anything with any degree of certainty. In my opinion, we can do so by using a planning strategy based on risk assessments of various scenarios and introducing a higher level of flexibility when executing and following up the plans. We need to add a monitoring element to the risk analysis and plans so that we can identify how the climate effects change in local areas. The information we obtain from this monitoring work must be used to adjust the plans when we see that the climate changes’ effect on the weather deviates from our original assumptions. A changed climate represents a changed risk picture for society and industry. We have the tools for planning for the future – a future that is uncertain – we must simply start to use them. Risk-based climate adaptation and flexible plans which allow an opportunity for revision as we gain experience about how the climate affects the local weather in various regions should be a natural element of future investment projects, whether owned by the authorities or industry.

Mixed Reactions from the Carbon Market to Chinese CDM regulations

chee-keong — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:18:23 +0000

The Chinese “Measures for the Operation and Management of Clean Development Mechanism Projects” has gone through two revisions since its birth. The latest revision came into effect on 3^rd August 2011 superseding the previous version dated 12 October 2005. Major changes a. Involvement of local/provincial DRC The main inclusion in the latest version is clause 18, where the Project Proponent will now have to submit its application to local/provincial Development Reform Commission (DRC) where the project (or proposed project) is located for review. The local/provincial DRC will then forward all the documents supplied by the Project Proponent (PP) and its preliminary review opinion to the National Development Reform Commission (NDRC) within 20 working days from the date of submission made by the PP. Clause 18 also states that the local/provincial DRCs are not granted the authority to approve or reject a project proposal. Should there be any non-compliance with rules and regulations or shortage of documents, the local/provincial DRC shall request the PP to supplement immediately or within 5 working days in one request. Appendix 1 of the ruling lists 41 SOEs (State Owned Enterprises) which are exempted from this new ruling. Projects from these 41 SOEs could be submitted directly to the NDRC. b. Changes to tax levied on the CER income Clause 36: Tax levied on projects reducing nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions from nitric acid production has been reduced from the previous 30% to 10% of the transacted value of CERs sales. Tax on CER revenue from projects reducing emission of perfluorocarbons (PFC) is now 5%. Tax percentages for any other type of projects remain unchanged. c. Credit materialized post 2012 Clause 37: Carbon credit generated post 2012 from currently approved projects shall not be traded unless otherwise approved by the NDRC. Reactions from the market With the release of the latest version of the “Measures for the Operation and Management of Clean Development Mechanism Projects”, there are various reactions from the market. One of the foremost reactions is that the new ruling will likely extend the application process by 20 working days. If we take a closer look at the bigger picture, the revision setting out an additional step to submit the application to the local/provincial DRC (except for projects from the 41 SOEs listed in Appendix 1 of the ruling) may result in a positive outcome: a) the introduction of the local/provincial DRCs’ involvement could be seen as an extra pair of eyes to check on the documents including various local authorities’ approvals which could potentially speed up the document review process as well as verifying the authenticity of documents; and b) through the process of review, CDM competency level at local/provincial level could be enhanced. Revision to regulations is deemed necessary as market conditions change. As a DOE actively involved in the carbon market, DNV shall ensure compliance with the new ruling.

Why aren’t you listening?

noel — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:26:05 +0000

Mark Trexler’s excellent blog piece “What’s Missing When It Comes to Managing Climate Risk” dated April 6 is certainly food for thought. It got me thinking anyway... In his blog post <http://blogs.dnv.com/climate_risk/2011/04/what%e2%80%99s-missing-when-it-comes-to-managing-climate-risk/> Mark rightly observes that the global community is not doing enough to “avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”, and suggests that better characterising and communicating risk will help address this situation. While I have to agree with this, I think we will always have a problem communicating risk if the people we communicate to are not listening. I suggest the problem goes much deeper than improving the scientific and risk management communities’ technical approaches for communicating climate risk. There are, broadly, two much deeper societal and humanistic aspects at play here. The first aspect is that we humans don’t really want to hear dire messages about existential risk and even if we do, the risk is conveniently distant enough for many of us to put it to one side. The second is that it seems, as Ulrich Beck theorises, our contemporary risk society¹ has lost its unquestioning trust in scientism. We now live in a world driven by the need to manage technological risk. Scientism got us into this situation; can it be trusted to get us out of it? The technologists among us are sure they can, but the lay public is less sure. What happens when someone you don’t trust tells you something you don’t want to hear? The Australian Government’s independent Climate Commission recently released a report, The Critical Decade reaffirming the risks from anthropogenic climate change and stressing that we must act now. Nonetheless, certain political and industrial interests opposing Australian action on climate change still gain traction with the community. A recent online survey <http://www.csiro.au/resources/Climate-change-attitudes-online-survey.html> of 5,000 Australians indicates that while a majority of those surveyed think climate change is happening, only about half think humans are largely causing it. There are multiple discourses at play here and we need to cross the boundaries of those discourses before we can effectively manage the risks of climate change. It doesn’t matter if the scientific community believes climate change risk is becoming self evident if other citizens perceive things differently. Until we give proper regard to the different worldviews of scientists and the wider public, including those who set policy, until we accept the legitimacy of other worldviews, we will continue to experience risk communication challenges, and progress will be slow. "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw ¹See Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity.

Musical chairs

chee-keong — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:27:05 +0000

It has been a cold and dry winter in Beijing. A grey layer of dust has cast a gloomy shadow over the city – perhaps helping to obscure a worrying development in human capital in the carbon market. Yet as spring arrives, so does an expected buzz of human resource activities. In this part of the world, it is normal for salary earners to eagerly anticipate the year-end increments and bonuses, followed by the big Spring Festival celebration. After the bonus payments, it is also common for salary earners in various professions to start looking for other opportunities; in hope of better remuneration packages, less stressful work environments, and brighter career prospects. Whatever the motivation, it is a season of hopping – shifting gear into the fast lane or moving to a slower lane to take a breather from stressful workloads – particularly in the carbon market. Industry-leavers In the carbon market, fund management companies and consultancy firms, bankers and major oil companies tend to opt for mergers and acquisitions. Coupled with an unpredictable post-2012 carbon market, this has led some to leave the industry, while others have been made redundant. Many of these industry-leavers are early entrepreneurs in the carbon market who have been successful enough to retire or venture into other businesses. Ostensibly, there should be a sufficient number of working-class consultants in the market to take up vacancies in a Designated Operating Entity (DOE) and assume a third party role. In reality, however, the outlook is rather different. Credit chase The credit chase of pre-2012 has created substantial demand for trained validators and verifiers, especially those from reputable DOEs. Many qualified validators and verifiers have been offered with lucrative income packages, often thanks to the efforts of headhunters. Yet on a whole, the carbon market remains in deficit of trained third party validators and verifiers. The third party role has not been a sought-after position in the market, mainly due to heavy workloads, but also because income opportunities cannot compete with those in origination and consultancy roles. Shortage of trained validators and verifiers Due to the shortage of trained validators and verifiers, many DOEs are willing to pay a premium just to recruit trained resources to meet the needs up to 2012. In the quest for trained resources, headcount costs have escalated manyfold. Still, many strive to outdo each other in recruiting, and the race only continues. Will the market be able to sustain both the tangible and intangible costs of such movement of trained resources? Many move on as frequently as every 12 to 18 months. Have a closer look at the bigger picture, and it is plain to see that all this movement is happening at the expense of the projects. Each time a project changes hands from one manager to another, work gets delayed and continuity and progress is interrupted. Effectively, the demand for trained resources to fill third party roles far exceeds the supply. Have DOEs lowered their requirements of trained resources? It can seem as if some have resorted to pinching anyone with previous experience from a reputable DOE. How long will this practice continue? Is it really a sustainable strategy for markets to function successfully? Excessive movement will be disadvantageous to the market as well as individuals. If this was a game of musical chairs, it would look as if the market has more chairs than qualified takers.

The US could be leading the race in installing the first offshore HVDC transmission grid

christopher — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:15:44 +0000

The Atlantic Wind Connection (AWC) project off the US east coast could be the first ever offshore Multi-Terminal HVDC (MTDC) network. When completed, AWC could transmit 6,000-7,000 MW of offshore wind power to shore, enough to supply more than 2 million US homes. According to plans all permits are expected to be in place by 2013, the first of five construction phases would be completed as early as 2016 and the complete network could be in place by 2021. There seems to be consensus that a MTDC network in Europe will not materialize before after 2020. The AWC project will include the following facilities:

Nine offshore and seven onshore nodes with voltage source converter (VSC) stations. Each offshore node is rated 500-1,000 MW.

Two independent HVDC circuits totalling more than 1,200 km of circuit length, mostly located between 16 and 29 km offshore. Each circuit contains two power cables operated at 320 kV DC voltage, and a fibre optic communication cable. The transmission backbone is split in two to avoid faults in one circuit affecting the other.

AWC is a cheaper and more flexible Solution

The Brattle Group calculates the project cost to approximately $5 billion and says it would be far cheaper than connecting each wind farm to shore with independent cables. The flexibility in routing wind power to different market areas and relieving onshore transmission congestion are both strong arguments in favour of the project; A 2009 US DOE Congestion study deemed the Mid-Atlantic region a “Critical Congestion Area”.

Partly funded by Google

The project is led by independent transmission company Trans-Elect with Atlantic Grid Development as the project developer. Financial backing is provided by Google (37.5%), Good Energies (37.5%) and Marubeni Corporation (15%). The US Mid-Atlantic Bight holds potential for up to 60,000 MW of offshore wind power in relatively shallow waters, and the U.S. government this year announced four zones for offshore wind energy development in the area. The 450 MW NRG Bluewater Wind project off the coast of Delaware and scheduled for 2016 could be the first to connect to the AWC transmission backbone.

Maximizing Opportunities and Minimizing Risks

rescalvo — Fri, 20 May 2011 13:52:14 +0000

While the future of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is uncertain, other mechanisms such as, Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) are quickly gaining international attention. This rapid rise in popularity may be attributed to NAMAs’ comprehensive nature, rather than their simplistic design. NAMAs are voluntary emission reduction measures undertaken by developing countries that are reported by national governments to the UNFCCC. They are expected to be the main vehicle for mitigation action in developing countries under a future climate agreement, and can be policies, programs or projects implemented at national, regional, or local levels. NAMAs have the potential to provide developing countries a means of reducing their CO₂ emissions in a manner that facilitates mitigation and adaptation strategies as well as sustainable development, while being measurable, reportable and verifiable Currently, there are 43 NAMA proposals submitted to UNFCCC. Each of one these are unique and customized to meet the needs of each individual developing country. Some are promoting sustainability development in the country in the areas of energy, transport and agriculture. Some are promising viable investment opportunities for Annex 1 countries in terms of financing, technology development and capacity building. Simply put, NAMA’s are quickly becoming a panacea for climate change mitigation. Vast potential…and challenges However, before we all join hands in a victory lap, let’s be sure that we have done our homework. Yes, NAMAs offer vast potential. But they also create challenges. For starters, how can something so unique and so customized for an individual country still be measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV)? How can we develop a matrix of protocols to ensure success of these program? Is it possible to ensure uniform quality in capacity building? How can something so unique and individualized be made uniform enough to attract private sector investment? For organizations working on a proposed NAMA, whether with international entities such as the World Bank or the Inter-American Development Bank or the individuals in developing countries charged with implementing the NAMA, there will be a vast and potentially confusing array of systems, laws, procedures and processes that must be navigated. For those of us who has been involved in the evolution of the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms from their incipient form, we know that it has not been without effort that we have arrived to a system that, with its imperfections, is contributing to climate change mitigation. We now face the risk of dispersing our efforts in the design and implementation of many different parallel systems (bilateral agreements, sectoral programs) that may dilute the impact of our positive efforts to combat climate change. Coordination, proper attention to program design and capacity building to secure proper implementation are key, as well as agreeing on the management systems that can facilitate third party verification of the implemented actions and their impact on mitigating climate change. In this context, how do you think all stakeholders can contribute to make any post 2012 regime a success?

No shale for Shell... In Sweden at least

selim — Wed, 04 May 2011 16:36:19 +0000

Shell recently announced it is not going to renew its exploration licenses in Scania (Southern Sweden) after the analysis of the 3 wells drilled showed that no gas could be produced from the Alum shale there. In addition to the exploration analysis results, other factors are not helping the unconventional gas case in Sweden. I will highlight 3 of them:

Natural gas demand: with 43 Bcf of natural gas imported, Sweden is a limited natural gas consumer (Europe imports about 9400 Bcf/y).
The electricity mix: it is “relatively” cleaner than the rest of the world: about half of the power generated in Sweden is from hydropower, the other half being nuclear power.
Sustainable power potential: it is huge. Whereas the power consumption in Sweden is about 135 TWh/y the economical renewable power potential is 170 TWh/y mostly from potential hydropower and biomass (see Table 2-2)

Therefore the need for unconventional gas development is somehow limited in a country with this type of energy mix. In Germany and Poland (which technically recoverable reserves are estimated to be about 187 tcf) however, where supermajors are also drilling for unconventional gas (see video) , the situation is different:

Natural gas demand: it is high. With 2008 Bcf of natural gas imported annually Germany is the third largest natural gas importer in the world. Poland with its 400 Bcf of natural gas imported annually is the 16^th.
Electricity mix: it is not clean. With 50% of power generated from coal and 27% from Nuclear power Germany has a large improvement potential. Poland, with 92% of power generated from coal is at the very beginning of a greener electricity mix strategy.
Sustainable Power potential: it is important. In Germany, power consumption is about 547 TWh/y and the economical renewable power potential is about 433 TWh/y, mostly from potential wind power and biomass (see Table 2-2). In Poland, sustainable energy could power the country at 100%. Indeed, the power consumption in Poland is about 129 TWh/y and the economical renewable power potential is about 130 TWh/y, mostly from potential wind power and biomass.

This means that even if exploratory results for unconventional gas are conclusive, Germany and Poland will still have the opportunity to invest in renewable energy production or unconventional gas…or both. Any of these strategies would eventually improve their coal based electricity mix and create economic growth. Investing in unconventional gas development is a risky process and each project, each country and each unconventional gas formation is different and should be assessed thoroughly with a holistic risk based approach to increase the chance of success.

Opportunity knocks

eirik — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:53:36 +0000

Norway has a golden opportunity to become world leaders in hybrid and battery technology on ships. In Norway, plans are being made to introduce battery ferries on up to 100 routes, which would drastically cut NOx emissions. In the U.S. a hybrid tug has been made that uses a battery in conjunction with a Diesel engine to reduce all emissions dramatically: CO2 -27%, NOx -51%, particulate matter (PM) -73%.

There are two main ways of using batteries for power: 1. Batteries provide all energy at normal conditions Battery ferries where the battery will provide all power at normal conditions, will have no operating emissions as long as everything is working properly. In Norway, there will also be low emissions from charging the batteries, because of hydropower in the Nordic electricity mix, while in other countries the local electricity grid can be powered by gas or coal and in that case battery ferries will only help against local NOx, SOx and PM emissions. This is, if you ask anyone living near a harbor or one of the thousands dying each year from emissions from shipping, a big deal! 2. Hybrid systems with a diesel or gas engine providing the base load The other way to use batteries are in a hybrid arrangement with a Diesel or gas engine that provides the base load, while the batteries takes care of peaks and troughs in power demand. This hybrid arrangement leads to less idling as the engine will almost always be running at an optimal load, which again reduces NOx and PM emissions. Battery and engine in a hybrid arrangement can result in lower emissions because the engine can run at an optimal load. The hybrid tug, which is perhaps the most suitable ship type for a hybrid engine, emitted an amazing 27% less CO₂, 51% less NOx and 73% less PM in the first version! In summary hybrid and battery ships are coming. Due to an abundance of ferries and offshore supply vessels, Norway is in a very good position to take the global lead in developing this technology.