Duke Energy sets record for use in Carolinas

Ukraine Electricity Imports surge to record levels as EU neighbors bolster grid stability amid Russian strikes, supporting energy security, preventing blackouts, and straining cross-border transmission capacity while Ukraine rebuilds damaged infrastructure and diversifies with renewables.

Key Points

Emergency EU power purchases stabilizing Ukraine’s grid after war damage.

✅ Record 19,000 MWh per day from EU interconnectors

✅ Supports grid stability and blackout prevention

✅ Cost and transmission upgrades challenge sustainability

Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine has extended far beyond the battlefield, with critical infrastructure becoming a target. Ukraine's once-robust energy system has sustained significant damage amid energy ceasefire violations and Russian missile and drone strikes. To cope with these disruptions and maintain power supplies for Ukrainian citizens, the country is turning to record-breaking electricity imports from neighboring European nations.

Prior to the war, Ukraine enjoyed a self-sufficient energy sector, even exporting electricity to neighboring countries. However, targeted attacks on power plants and transmission lines have crippled generation capacity. The situation is particularly dire in eastern and southern Ukraine, where ongoing fighting has caused extensive damage.

Faced with this energy crisis, Ukraine is looking to Europe for a lifeline. The country's energy ministry has announced plans to import a staggering amount of electricity – exceeding 19,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) per day – to prepare for winter and stabilize supplies. This surpasses the previous record set in March 2024 and represents a significant increase in Ukraine's reliance on external power sources.

Several European nations are stepping up to support Ukraine. Countries like Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, which maintains quiet energy ties with Russia today, and Moldova have agreed to provide emergency electricity supplies. These imports will help stabilize Ukraine's power grid and prevent widespread blackouts, especially during peak consumption hours.

The reliance on imports, however, presents its own set of challenges. Firstly, the sheer volume of electricity needed puts a strain on the capacity of neighboring grids. Upgrading and expanding transmission infrastructure will be crucial to ensure a smooth flow of electricity. Secondly, the cost of imported electricity can be higher than domestically generated power amid price hikes and instability globally, placing additional pressure on Ukraine's already strained finances.

Beyond these immediate concerns, the long-term implications of relying on external energy sources need to be considered. Ukraine's long-term goal is to rebuild its own energy infrastructure and regain energy independence. International assistance, including energy security support measures, will be crucial in this endeavor. Financial aid and technical expertise can help Ukraine repair damaged power plants, diversify its energy mix through further investment in renewables, and develop more resilient grid infrastructure.

The war in Ukraine has underscored the importance of energy security. A nation's dependence on a single source of energy, be it domestic or foreign, leaves it vulnerable to disruption, as others consider national security and fossil fuels in their own policies. For Ukraine, diversification and building a more resilient energy infrastructure are key takeaways from this crisis.

The international community also has a role to play. Supporting Ukraine's energy sector not only helps the nation weather the current crisis but also strengthens European energy security as a whole, where concerns over Europe's energy nightmare remain pronounced. A stable and independent Ukraine, less reliant on Russian energy, contributes to a more secure and prosperous Europe.

As the war in Ukraine continues, the battle for energy security rages on. While the immediate focus is on keeping the lights on through imports, the long-term goal for Ukraine is to rebuild a stronger, more resilient energy sector that can power the nation's future. The international community's support will be crucial in helping Ukraine achieve this goal.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nuclear Energy Growth accelerates as nations pursue decarbonization, complement renewables, displace coal, and ensure grid reliability with firm, low-carbon baseload, benefiting from standardized builds, lower cost of capital, and learning-curve cost reductions.

Key Points

Expansion of nuclear capacity to cut CO2, complement renewables, replace coal, and stabilize grids at low-carbon cost.

✅ Complements renewables; displaces coal for faster decarbonization

✅ Cuts system costs via standardization and lower cost of capital

✅ Provides firm, low-carbon baseload and grid reliability

By Kirill Komarov, Chairman, World Nuclear Association.

As Europe and the wider world begins to wake up to the need to cut emissions, Dr Kirill Komarov argues that tackling climate change will see the use of nuclear energy grow in the coming years, not as a competitor to renewables but as a competitor to coal.

The nuclear industry keeps making headlines and spurring debates on energy policy, including the green industrial revolution agenda in several countries. With each new build project, the detractors of nuclear power crowd the bandwagon to portray renewables as an easy and cheap alternative to ‘increasingly costly’ nuclear: if solar and wind are virtually free why bother splitting atoms?

Yet, paradoxically as it may seem, if we are serious about policy response to climate change, nuclear energy is seeing an atomic energy resurgence in the coming decade or two.

Growth has already started to pick up with about 3.1 GW new capacity added in the first half of 2018 in Russia and China while, at the very least, 4GW more to be completed by the end of the year – more than doubling the capacity additions in 2017.

In 2019 new connections to the grid would exceed 10GW by a significant margin.

If nuclear is in decline, why then do China, India, Russia and other countries keep building nuclear power plants?

To begin with, the issue of cost, argued by those opposed to nuclear, is in fact largely a bogus one, which does not make a fully rounded like for like comparison.

It is true that the latest generation reactors, especially those under construction in the US and Western Europe, have encountered significant construction delays and cost overruns.

But the main, and often the only, reason for that is the ‘first-of-a-kind’ nature of those projects.

If you build something for the first time, be it nuclear, wind or solar, it is expensive. Experience shows that with series build, standardised construction economies of scale and the learning curve from multiple projects, costs come down by around one-third; and this is exactly what is already happening in some parts of the world.

Furthermore, those first-of-a-kind projects were forced to be financed 100% privately and investors had to bear all political risks. It sent the cost of capital soaring, increasing at one stroke the final electricity price by about one third.

While, according to the International Energy Agency, at 3% cost of capital rate, nuclear is the cheapest source of energy: on average 1% increase adds about US$6-7 per MWh to the final price.

When it comes to solar and wind, the truth, inconvenient for those cherishing the fantasy of a world relying 100% on renewables, is that the ‘plummeting prices’ (which, by the way, haven’t changed much over the last three years, reaching a plateau) do not factor in so-called system and balancing costs associated with the need to smooth the intermittency of renewables.

Put simply, the fact the sun doesn’t shine at night and wind doesn’t blow all the time means wind and solar generation needs to be backed up.

According to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, integration of intermittent renewables into the grid is estimated in some cases to be as expensive as power generation itself.

Delivering the highest possible renewable content means customers’ bills will have to cover: renewable generation costs, energy storage solutions, major grid updates and interconnections investment, as well as gas or coal peaking power plants or ‘peakers’, which work only from time to time when needed to back up wind and solar.

The expected cost for kWh for peakers, according to investment bank Lazard is about twice that of conventional power plants due to much lower capacity factors.

Despite exceptionally low fossil fuel prices, peaking natural gas generation had an eye-watering cost of $156-210 per MWh in 2017 while electricity storage, replacing ‘peakers’, would imply an extra cost of $186-413 per MWh.

Burning fossil fuels is cheaper but comes with a great deal of environmental concern and extensive use of coal would make net-zero emissions targets all but unattainable.

So, contrary to some claims, nuclear does not compete with renewables. Moreover, a recent study by the MIT Energy Initiative showed, most convincingly, that renewables and load following advanced nuclear are complementary.

Nuclear competes with coal. Phasing out coal is crucial to fighting climate change. Putting off decisions to build new nuclear capacities while increasing the share of intermittent renewables makes coal indispensable and extends its life.

Scientists at the Brattle group, a consultancy, argue that “since CO2 emissions persist for many years in the atmosphere, near-term emission reductions are more helpful for climate protection than later ones”.

The longer we hesitate with new nuclear build the more difficult it becomes to save the Earth.

Nuclear power accounta for about one-tenth of global electricity production, but as much as one-third of generation from low-carbon sources. 1GWe of installed nuclear capacity prevents emissions of 4-7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year, depending on the region.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that in order to limit the average global temperature increase to 2°C and still meet global power demand, we need to connect to the grid at least 20GW of new nuclear energy each year.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) sets the target even higher with the total of 1,000 GWe by 2050, or about 10 GWe per year before 2020; 25 GWe per year from 2021 to 2025; and on average 33 GWe from 2026 to 2050.

Regulatory and political challenges in the West have made life for nuclear businesses in the US and in Europe's nuclear sector very difficult, driving many of them to the edge of insolvency; but in the rest of the world nuclear energy is thriving.

Nuclear vendors and utilities post healthy profits and invest heavily in next-gen nuclear innovation and expansion. The BRICS countries are leading the way, taking over the initiative in the global climate agenda. From their perspective, it’s the opposite of decline.

Dr Kirill Komarov is first deputy CEO of Russian state nuclear energy operator Rosatom and chairman of the World Nuclear Association.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Europe EV Sales Slowdown signals waning incentives, economic uncertainty, and supply chain constraints, threatening climate targets and net-zero emissions goals while highlighting the need for charging infrastructure, affordable batteries, and policy support across key markets.

Key Points

Europe's early-2024 EV registrations fell as incentives waned and supply gaps persisted, putting climate targets at risk.

✅ Fewer subsidies and tax breaks cut EV affordability

✅ Inflation and recession fears dampen car purchases

✅ Supply-chain and lithium constraints limit availability

A recent slowdown in Europe's electric vehicle (EV) sales raises serious concerns about the region's ability to achieve its ambitious climate targets.  After years of steady growth, new EV registrations declined in key markets like Norway, Germany, and the U.K. in early 2024. Experts are warning that this slump jeopardizes the transition away from fossil fuels and could undermine Europe's commitment to a net-zero emissions future.

Factors Behind the Decline

Several factors are contributing to the slowdown in EV sales:

• Reduced Incentives: Many European countries have scaled back generous subsidies and tax breaks for EV purchases. While these incentives played a crucial role in driving early adoption, their reduction has made EVs less financially attractive for some consumers, with many U.K. buyers citing higher prices even after discounts.
• End of ICE Ban Support: Public support for phasing out gasoline and diesel-powered cars by 2035, a key European Union policy, appears to be waning in some areas. Without robust support for this measure, consumers may be less inclined to embrace the transition to electric vehicles.
• Economic Uncertainty: Rising inflation and fears of a recession in Europe have made consumers hesitant to invest in big-ticket purchases like new cars, regardless of fuel type. This economic uncertainty is impacting both electric and conventional vehicle sales.
• Supply Chain Constraints: Ongoing supply chain disruptions and shortages of raw materials like lithium continue to impact the availability of affordable electric vehicles. This means potential buyers face long wait times or inflated prices even when they're ready to embrace EVs.

Consequences for Europe's Green Agenda

The decline in EV sales threatens Europe's plans to reduce carbon emissions and become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, aligning with a broader push for electricity to address the climate dilemma across Europe. The transportation sector is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and the rapid electrification of vehicles is a pillar of Europe's decarbonization strategy.

The current slump highlights the need for continued policy support for the EV market, as EVs still trail gas models in many markets today, to ensure long-term growth and affordability for consumers. Without action, experts fear that Europe may find itself locked into a dependence on fossil fuels for decades to come, making its climate targets unreachable.

A Global Concern

Europe is a leader in electric vehicle policies and technology, during a period when global EV sales climbed markedly. The recent slowdown, however, sends a worrying signal to other regions around the world aiming to accelerate their transition to electric vehicles, including the U.S. market's Q1 dip as a cautionary example. It underscores the importance of sustained government support, investment in charging infrastructure and overcoming supply chain challenges to secure a future of widespread electric vehicle use, with many forecasts suggesting mass adoption within a decade if support continues.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ecofiscal Commission EV Policy Shift examines carbon pricing limits, endorsing signal boosters like subsidies, EV incentives, and coal bans, amid advisory changes and public pushback, to accelerate emissions cuts beyond market-based taxes and regulations.

Key Points

An updated stance recognizing carbon pricing limits and backing EV incentives, subsidies, and rules to reduce emissions.

✅ Carbon pricing plus subsidies, EV incentives

✅ Advisory shift; Jack Mintz departs

✅ Focus on emissions cuts, coal power bans

Something strange happened at the Ecofiscal Commission recently. Earlier this month, the carbon-tax advocacy group featured on its website as one of its advisers the renowned Canadian economist (and FP Comment columnist) Jack M. Mintz. The other day, suddenly and without fanfare, Mintz was gone from the website, and the commission’s advisory board.

Advisers come and advisers go, of course, but it turns out there was an impetus for Mintz’s departure. The Ecofiscal Commission in its latest report, dropped just before Canada Day, seemingly shifted from its position that carbon prices were so excellent at mimicking market forces that the tax could repeal and replace virtually the entire vast expensive gallimaufry of subsidies, caps, rules and regulations that are costing Canada a fortune in business and bureaucrats. As some Ecofiscal commissioners wrote just a few months ago, policies that “dictate specific technologies or methods for reducing emissions constrain private choice and increase costs” and were a bad idea.

But, in this latest report, the commission is now musing about the benefits of carbon-tax “signal boosters”: that is, EV subsidies and rules to, for instance, get people to start buying electric vehicles (EVs), as well as bans on coal-fired power. “Even well designed carbon pricing can have limitations,” rationalized the commission. Mintz said he had “misgivings” about the change of tack. He decided it best if he focus his advisory energies elsewhere.

It’s hard to blame the commission for falling like everyone else for the electric-car mania that’s sweeping the nation and the world. Electric cars offer a sexiness that dreary old carbon taxes can never hope to match — especially in light of a new Angus Reid poll last week that showed the majority of Canadians now want governments to shelve any plans for carbon taxes.

So far, because nobody’s really driving these miracle machines, said mania has been limited to breathless news reports about how the electric-vehicle revolution is about to rock our world. EVs comprise just two-tenths of a per cent of all passenger vehicles in North America, despite the media’s endless hype and efforts of green-obsessed governments to cover much of the price tag, like Ontario’s $14,000 rebate for Tesla buyers. In Europe, where virtue-signalling urban environmentalism is the coolest, they’re not feeling the vehicular electricity much more: EVs account for barely one per cent of personal vehicles in France, the U.K. and Germany. When Hong Kong cancelled Tesla rebates in April, sales fell to zero.

Going by the ballyhoo, you’d think EVs were at an inflection point and an unstoppable juggernaut. But it’s one that has yet to even get started. In his 2011 State of the Union address, then president Barack Obama predicted one million electric cars on the road by 2015. Four years later, there wasn’t even a third that many. California offered so many different subsidies for electric vehicles that low-income families could get rebates of up to US$13,500, but it still isn’t even close to reaching its target of having zero-emission vehicles make up 15 per cent of California auto sales by 2025, being stuck at three per cent since 2014. Ontario’s Liberal government last year announced to much laughter its plan to ensure that every family would have at least one zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) by 2024, and Quebec made a plan to make ZEVs worth 15.5 per cent of sales by 2020, while Ottawa’s 2035 EV mandate attracts criticism too. Let’s see how that’s going: Currently, ZEVs make up 0.16 per cent of new vehicle sales in Ontario and 0.38 per cent in Quebec.

The latest sensational but bogus EV news out last week was France’s government announcing the “end of the sale of gasoline and diesel cars by 2040,” and Volvo apparently announcing that as of 2019, all its models would be “electric.” Both announcements made international headlines. Both are baloney. France provided no actual details about this plan (will it literally become a crime to sell a gasoline car? Will hybrids, run partly on gasoline, be allowed?), but more importantly, as automotive writer Ed Wiseman pointed out in The Guardian, a lot will happen in technology and automotive use over the next 23 years that France has no way to predict, with changes in self-driving cars, public car-sharing and fuel technologies. Imagine making rules for today’s internet back in 1994.

Volvo, meanwhile, looked to be recycling and repackaging years-old news to seize on today’s infatuation with electric vehicles to burnish its now Chinese-owned brand. Since 2010, Volvo’s plan has been to focus on engines that were partly electric, with electric turbochargers, but still based on gasoline. Volvo doesn’t actually have an all-electric model, but the gasoline-swigging engine of its popular XC90 SUV is, partly, electrical. When Volvo said all its models would in two years be “electric,” it meant this kind of engine, not that it was phasing out the internal-combustion gasoline engine. But that is what it wanted reporters to think, and judging by all the massive and inaccurate coverage, it worked.

The real story being missed is just how pathetic things look right now for electric cars. Gasoline prices in the U.S. turned historically cheap in 2015 and stayed cheap, icing demand for gasless cars. Tesla, whose founder’s self-promotion had made the niche carmaker magically more valuable than powerhouses like Ford and GM, haemorrhaged US$12 billion in market value last week after tepid sales figures brought some investors back to Earth, even as the company’s new Model 3 began rolling off the line.

Not helping is that environmental claims about environmental cars are falling apart. In June, Tesla was rocked by a controversial Swedish study that found that making one of its car batteries released as much CO2 as eight years of gasoline-powered driving. And Bloomberg reported last week on a study by Chinese engineers that found that electric vehicles, because of battery manufacturing and charging by fossil-fuel-powered electricity sources, emit 50-per-cent more carbon than do internal-combustion engines. Still, the electric-vehicle hype not only continues unabated, it gets bigger and louder every day. If some car company figures out how to harness it, we’d finally have a real automotive revolution on our hands.

Kevin Libin, Financial Post

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Hospital Electricity Reliability underpins ICU operations, ventilators, medical devices, and diagnostics, reducing power outages risks via grid power and backup generators, while energy poverty and blackouts magnify COVID-19 mortality in vulnerable regions.

Key Points

Hospital electricity reliability is steady power that keeps ICU care, ventilators and medical devices operating.

✅ ICU loads: ventilators, monitors, infusion pumps, diagnostics

✅ Grid power plus backup generators minimize outage risk

✅ Energy poverty increases COVID-19 mortality and infection

Robert Bryce, Contributor

During her three-year career as a registered nurse, my friend, C., has cared for tuberculosis patients as well as ones with severe respiratory problems. She’s now caring for COVID-19 patients at a hospital in Ventura County, California, where debates about keeping the lights on continue amid the state’s energy transition. Is she scared about catching the virus? “No,” she replied during a phone call on Thursday. “I’m pretty unflappable.”

What would scare her? She quickly replied, “a power outage,” a threat that grows during summer blackouts when heat waves drive demand. About a year ago, while working in Oregon, the hospital she was working in lost power for about 45 minutes. “It was terrifying,” she said. 

C., who wasn’t authorized by her hospital to talk to the media, and thus asked me to only use the initial of her first name, said that COVID-19 patients are particularly reliant on electrical devices. She quickly ticked off the machines: “The bed, the IV machine, vital signs monitor, heart monitor, the sequential compression devices...” COVID-19 patients are hooked up to a minimum of five electrical devices, she said, and if the virus-stricken patient needs high-pressure oxygen or a ventilator, the number of electrical devices could be two or three times that number. “You name it, it plugs in,” she said.  

Today In: Energy

The virus has infected some 2.2 million people around the world and killed more than 150,000,including more than 32,000 people here in the U.S. While those numbers are frightening, it is apparent that the toll would be far higher without adequate supplies of reliable electricity. Modern healthcare systems depend on electricity. Hospitals are particularly big consumers. Power demand in hospitals is about 36 watts per square meter, which is about six times higher than the electricity load in a typical American home, and utilities are turning to AI to adapt to electricity demands during surges. 

Beating the coronavirus is all about electricity. Indeed, nearly every aspect of coronavirus detection, testing, and treatment requires juice. Second, it appears that the virus is more deadly in places where electricity is scarce or unreliable. Finally, if there are power outages in virus hotspots or hospitals, a real risk in a grid with more blackouts than other developed countries, the damage will be even more severe. 

As my nurse friend in Ventura County made clear, her ability to provide high-quality care for patients is wholly dependent on reliable electricity. The thermometers used to check for fever are powered by electricity. The monitors she uses to keep track of her patients, as well as her Vocera, the walkie-talkie that she uses to communicate with her colleagues, runs on batteries. Testing for the virus requires electricity. One virus-testing machine, Abbott Labs’ m2000, is a 655-pound appliance that, according to its specification sheet, runs on either 120 or 240 volts of electricity. The operating manual for a ventilator made by Hamilton Medical is chock full of instructions relating to electricity, including how to manage the machine’s batteries and alarms. 

While it may be too soon to make a direct connection between lack of electricity and the lethality of the coronavirus, the early signs from the Navajo reservation indicate that energy poverty amplifies the danger. The sprawling reservation has about 175,000 residents, but it has a higher death toll from the virus than 13 states. About 10 percent of Navajos do not have electricity in their homes and more than 30 percent lack indoor plumbing. 

The death rate from the virus on the reservation now stands at 3.4 percent, which is nearly twice the global average. In the middle of last week, the entire population of Native American tribes in the U.S. accounted for about 1,100 confirmed cases of the virus and about 44 deaths. Navajos accounted for the majority of those, with 830 confirmed cases of coronavirus and 28 deaths. 

On Saturday night, the Navajo Times reported a major increase, with 1,197 positive cases of COVID-19 on the reservation and 44 deaths. Other factors may contribute to the high infection and mortality rates on the reservation, including  high rates of diabetes, obesity, and crowded residential living situations. That said, electricity and water are essential to good hygiene and health authorities say that frequent hand washing helps cut the risk of contracting the virus. 

The devastation happening on Navajoland provides a window into what may happen in crowded, electricity-poor countries like India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. It also shows what could happen if a tornado or hurricane were to wipe out the electric grid in virus hotspots like New Orleans, as extreme weather increasingly afflicts the grid nationwide. Sure, most American hospitals have backup generators to help assure reliable power. But those generators can fail. Further, they usually burn diesel fuel which needs to be replenished every few days. 

The essential point here is that our hospitals and critical health care machines aren’t running on solar panels and batteries. Instead, they are running on grid power that’s being provided by reliable sources — coal, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear power — which together produce about 89 percent of the electricity consumed in this country, even as Russian hacking of utilities highlights cyber risks. The pandemic — which is inflicting trillions of dollars of damage on our economy and tens of thousands of deaths — underscores the criticality of abundant and reliable electricity to our society and the tremendous damage that would occur if our health care infrastructure were to be hit by extended blackouts during the fight to stop COVID-19.

In a follow-up interview on Saturday with my friend, C., she told me that while caring for patients, she and her colleagues “are entirely dependent on electricity. We take it for granted. It’s a hidden assumption in our work,” a reminder echoed by a grid report card that warns of dangerous vulnerabilities. She quickly added she and her fellow nurses “aren’t trained or equipped to deal with circumstances that would come with shoddy power. If we lost power completely, people will die.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

CO2 Tax for UK Offshore Energy Efficiency can accelerate adoption of aero-derivative gas turbines, flare gas recovery, and combined cycle power, reducing emissions on platforms like Equinor's Mariner and supporting net zero goals.

Key Points

A carbon price pushing operators to adopt efficient turbines, flare recovery, and combined cycle to cut emissions.

✅ Aero-derivative turbines beat industrial units on efficiency

✅ Flare gas recovery cuts routine flaring and fuel waste

✅ Combined cycle raises efficiency and lowers emissions

By Tom Baxter

The recent Energy Voice article from the Equinor chairman concerning the Mariner project heralding a ‘significant point of reference’ for growth highlighted the energy efficiency achievements associated with the platform.

I view energy efficiency as a key enabler to net zero, and alongside this the UK must start large-scale storage to meet system needs; it is a topic I have been involved with for many years.

As part of my energy efficiency work, I investigated Norwegian practices and compared them with the UK.

There were many differences, here are three;

1. Power for offshore installations is usually supplied from gas turbines burning fuel from the oil and gas processing plant, and even as the UK's offshore wind supply accelerates, installations convert that to electricity or couple the gas turbine to a machine such as a gas compressor.

There are two main generic types of gas turbine – aero-derivative and industrial. As the name implies aero-derivatives are aviation engines used in a static environment. Aero-derivative turbines are designed to be energy efficient as that is very import for the aviation industry.

Not so with industrial type gas turbines; they are typically 5-10% less efficient than a comparable aero-derivative.

Industrial machines do have some advantages – they can be cheaper, require less frequent maintenance, they have a wide fuel composition tolerance and they can be procured within a shorter time frame.

My comparison showed that aero-derivative machines prevailed in Norway because of the energy efficiency advantages – not the case in the UK where there are many more offshore industrial gas turbines.

Tom Baxter is visiting professor of chemical engineering at Strathclyde University and a retired technical director at Genesis Oil and Gas Consultants

2. Offshore gas flaring is probably the most obvious source of inefficient use of energy with consequent greenhouse gas emissions.

On UK installations gas is always flared due to the design of the oil and gas processing plant.

Though not a large quantity of gas, a continuous flow of gas is routinely sent to flare from some of the process plant.

In addition the flare requires pilot flames to be maintained burning at all times and, while Europe explores electricity storage in gas pipes, a purge of hydrocarbon gas is introduced into the pipes to prevent unsafe air ingress that could lead to an explosive mixture.

On many Norwegian installations the flare system is designed differently. Flare gas recovery systems are deployed which results in no flaring during continuous operations.

Flare gas recovery systems improve energy efficiency but they are costly and add additional operational complexity.

3. Returning to gas turbines, all UK offshore gas turbines are open cycle – gas is burned to produce energy and the very hot exhaust gases are vented to the atmosphere. Around 60 -70% of the energy is lost in the exhaust gases.

Some UK fields use this hot gas as a heat source for some of the oil and gas treatment operations hence improving energy efficiency.

There is another option for gas turbines that will significantly improve energy efficiency – combined cycle, and in parallel plans for nuclear power under the green industrial revolution aim to decarbonise supply.

Here the exhaust gases from an open cycle machine are taken to a separate turbine. This additional turbine utilises exhaust heat to produce steam with the steam used to drive a second turbine to generate supplementary electricity. It is the system used in most UK power stations, even as UK low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 across the grid.

Open cycle gas turbines are around 30 – 40% efficient whereas combined cycle turbines are typically 50 – 60%. Clearly deploying a combined cycle will result in a huge greenhouse gas saving.

I have worked on the development of many UK oil and gas fields and combined cycle has rarely been considered.

The reason being is that, despite the clear energy saving, they are too costly and complex to justify deploying offshore.

However that is not the case in Norway where combined cycle is used on Oseberg, Snorre and Eldfisk.

What makes the improved Norwegian energy efficiency practices different from the UK – the answer is clear; the Norwegian CO2 tax.

A tax that makes CO2 a significant part of offshore operating costs.

The consequence being that deploying energy efficient technology is much easier to justify in Norway when compared to the UK.

Do we need a CO2 tax in the UK to meet net zero – I am convinced we do. I am in good company. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Total are supporting a carbon tax.

Not without justification there has been much criticism of Labour’s recent oil tax plans, alongside proposals for state-owned electricity generation that aim to reshape the power market.

To my mind Labour’s laudable aims to tackle the Climate Emergency would be much better served by supporting a CO2 tax that complements the UK's coal-free energy record by strengthening renewable investment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News