Gadis Ini Temukan ''Telur Aneh" di Semak-semak, Tidak Disangka Saat Didekati Ternyata

 

From the rise of renewable power to the transformation of the United States into a heavyweight producer of oil and gas, the global energy market, normally slow to evolve, is going through major upheaval. That is the assessment of Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency, the organization based in Paris that is publishing its annual World Energy Outlook on Tuesday. The report does not make for easy bedtime reading: It is 763 pages long and stuffed with data-laden charts and tables. Still, the document tries to project current trends as far out as 2040, and sees an industry at the nexus of various powerful trends. The United States, for instance, has shifted from being an energy-dependent importer to a new role as one of the world’s biggest producers of oil and gas, the report says. But concerns about greenhouse-gas emissions have clouded the future of fossil fuels. That has encouraged the development of alternatives like solar and wind power, which increasingly compete with traditional energy sources. Here are some of the most important themes to be found in the report. ‘Energy Renaissance’ Energy production in the United States will continue to shake up the global oil and natural gas markets, and benefit the country’s economy. By the 2030s, largely because of production from shale-rock formations, the United States is expected to produce more than 30 million barrels of oil and gas a day, the report says. That is 50 percent more than any other country has ever produced in a single year. That is a sharp shift from the country’s position just a decade ago, when it was a major importer of oil. The shale industry has gone through a “trial by fire” in recent years, the report says, referring to a sharp falloff in the price of oil from more than $100 a barrel to as low as around $30 a barrel. It is now above $60 a barrel. That has transformed the shale sector, and it is “leaner and hungrier” than it was before the price crash, the report says. As a result, it is better able to quickly react to any sign of higher prices. That is crucial, as the OPEC oil cartel tries to manage its production levels to bolster prices. The Coming Gas Shake-Up Changes in how gas is transported and traded are having a major effect, on the energy industry and the environment. As the United States increases its gas production — it is now on track to surpass traditional giants like Qatar and Russia and become the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, or L.N.G. — it is also exporting what the report calls a disruptive “mind-set about how gas markets should operate.” Gas has historically been sold through long-term contracts pegged to oil prices. That has particularly been the case in Asia, the key market for L.N.G., which is expected to eventually dominate the international gas trade. But as the United States becomes a bigger force in gas markets, it is also helping to break down the existing system. Over time, the report forecasts that gas will be traded more widely and freely, potentially pushing down prices and making it more attractive to developing countries like India and China. Greater use of gas could bring major environmental benefits. When burned, it produces less of the carbon emissions associated with climate change than coal, and lower levels of other pollutants. Mr. Birol said, for instance, said that the decision by power plants in United States to switch from burning coal to gas was largely responsible for holding global emissions roughly steady in recent years (although they appear poised to rise this year). There is still work to be done, the report says. The gas industry needs to address emissions of methane that undermine that type of fuel’s environmental claims. “Natural gas is a viable exit ramp off of fossil fuels only if it cleans up its methane pollution, which now seriously undercuts its claimed climate advantages,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, an American environmental group. Gains for Renewables One factor that may hamper the growth of gas: rapidly falling costs of renewable sources of energy like wind and solar installations. The average cost of electricity generated over the life of a solar power plant declined by a stunning 70 percent from 2010 to 2016, according to the agency’s report. Wind costs declined by 25 percent in that period. Image The report forecasts that these technologies will only become less expensive over the next 25 years, squeezing fossil fuels, which are widely used to generate electric power. Already, power from new wind installations in India and China is cheaper than new gas-fired power plants. A similar situation is developing with solar power, the report says. Still, fossil fuels will not vanish anytime soon. It is much more difficult to reduce the use of coal, gas and oil in sectors like transportation and industry than it is in power generation, and the share of fossil fuels used to meet overall energy demand will be 75 percent in 2040, compared with 81 percent last year, according to the agency’s main scenario. And, the report adds, greenhouse gas levels still appear to be climbing above the threshold required to meet international goals like those established in the 2015 Paris climate accords. China’s Outsize Role Because of China’s scale as a consumer of energy, the choices that the country makes will be felt globally, the report says. China could overtake the United States as the world’s largest consumer of oil as soon as 2030. Of all the new solar and wind power installations to be added through 2040, a third could be in China. In that period, the country could also end up with 320 million electric vehicles, more than a third of the global total. “China’s choices,” the report says, “will play a huge role in determining global trends, and could spark a faster clean energy transition.”

Back in March, when I wrote about the Port of Corpus Christi’s (Port CC) struggles to convince congress to allocate the funds needed for the Army Corps of Engineers to deepen and expand the port’s main channel, news reports at the time indicated that the federal government’s share of the funding was $225 million. Which, in the context of a federal budget that well exceeds $4 trillion, doesn’t really seem like all that much for a port that has come to play such a crucial role in reducing the nation’s gigantic trade deficit. It turns out that number was high – way high. The real number, as explained to me last week by Port of Corpus Christi CEO Sean Strawbridge, is more like $94 million. “We’re in the middle of a bond issuance which we think will be closed by early August,” Strawbridge said, “There is an apportionment of that capital that is targeted for the channel improvement project, but if and only if the federal government can execute on the project in the time frame we need it to be executed on. “We’re not going to pay for more than our current responsibility for it without a firm commitment from the federal government to execute on this project through the Army Corps of Engineers within that time frame. And there should be no reason that they can’t execute on the project. Right now, the federal responsibility is about $230 million, of which $36 million has been appropriated, so you’re looking at $194 million remaining, and if we’re willing to take on about $100 million of that, they would need to come up with $94 million to be fully funded.” Sounds simple, right? But of course, in Washington, D.C., nothing is simple. “Washington is an ‘interesting’ place,” Strawbridge continues with a chuckle, “In a time of competing voices for other things it can be tough to get people’s attention on something so obvious." Part of the problem is that the Port’s story sounds almost too good to be true, and as the old adage says, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. "But in this case, it is so good that people have a tough time believing it, so we have to constantly be out there.” For those who might be unaware, the Port CC story is, for the oil and gas industry, for the State of Texas and for the national economy, in fact almost too good to be true. Start with location: Corpus Christi lies on the southern Texas Gulf Coast, less than 100 miles from the sweet spot in the Eagle Ford Shale play, and the closest port to the booming Permian Basin region. Next, there’s the infrastructure. The Port is served by multiple rail lines, two interstate highways and a growing array of oil and natural gas pipelines. It is home to multiple refineries, cargo docks, bulk docks, liquids terminals, massive storage facilities and will soon feature a satellite terminal capable of landing the largest class of oil super-tankers (more on that subject in a moment). Then there’s the aforementioned trade deficit, which last year came in at roughly $566 billion. Port CC, as the mover of more than half of U.S. crude oil exports, is now playing a key role in helping to reduce that number. The Port is currently competing with Savannah, Charleston, Boston and Jacksonville for funding for dredging by the Corps of engineers. “Those ports are all primarily container ports,” Strawbridge notes, “and most containers are imports of foreign-made goods – mostly consumer goods. A lot of that is from China, which is one reason why we had a $375 billion trade deficit with China in 2017.” Port CC is the only pure-play energy export port in this mix. “We do zero containers and don’t compete with these ports or Houston for that container business. We are very unique and have no desire to enter into that fray. If we are going to make any significant dent in the broader trade deficit, and especially with China, it’s going to be in the area of energy exports. In fact, we’re exporting energy to China – China is one of the largest energy-consuming markets.” Landing that largest class of oil supertankers is one of the main reasons why Port CC needs to be dredged and deepened, not only for business reasons but for environmental reasons as well. Such ships are currently able to enter Port CC but are only able to be partially loaded there. To then be fully loaded with crude, the ships must leave the Port and move out to the deeper waters in the Gulf of Mexico, where they are reverse-lightered with crude carried to them by smaller tankers. “When they do that, they do it outside of Texas state waters and they’re not capturing the vapors as they’re required to do when in Port,” Strawbridge notes. “So, by being able to build more of that infrastructure and fully load this largest class of tankers in-port, we will be reducing the environmental footprint of the operations as well. That’s extremely important to us. It’s also important to us and beneficial to the environment to be able to export more of the light, sweet crude that comes into our port from West Texas and the Eagle Ford. Being able to do that helps our trading partners in Europe, Asia and elsewhere to be able to meet their own emissions goals, because that grade of crude has much lower content of Sulphur and other pollutants. Getting more of these U.S. barrels overseas is much more favorable to the environment.” So, the story does seem too good to be true, making the ongoing fight for funding even tougher than it otherwise might be. Strawbridge remains optimistic about the prospects for success: “One thing we’re doing is casting a wider net. We’ve been going to our customers and asking them to also advocate on behalf of this project, and they have embraced that approach,” he says. Support from policymakers has also been critical. “Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz have been supportive and signed letters of support, sent notes, made calls on our behalf.” Strawbridge’s job was complicated earlier in the year with the resignation of ex-congressman Blake Farenthold, leaving the district in which the Port resides temporarily without representation in the House of Representatives. “But we have been adopted by a number of folks, including Congressman Mike Conaway, who represents the Midland area, and Congressman Randy Weber, who has five ports in his district [including Beaumont and Port Arthur] and recognizes the challenges we face.” With U.S. crude exports now rising to more than 3 million barrels per day, and with the nation's refining capacity strained to its limits, obtaining such a relatively small amount of federal funding to ensure this dredging operation takes place in a timely manner seems like a no-brainer. But when the facts surrounding a project seem almost too good to be true, it makes them even harder to get done in the cynical world of Washington, DC.

Jeff McMahon , CONTRIBUTOR From Chicago, I write about green technology, energy, environment. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. CRS Nuclear Power has enjoyed nearly half of federal research and development spending since 1948. Nuclear energy has been the recipient of almost half of the federal government's energy research and development spending since 1948, according to a new assessment from the Congressional Research Service. Fossil fuels come in second at half that amount—24 percent. The little more than a quarter of federal spending that remains has been divided between renewables, energy efficiency and electric systems like the grid. "From FY1948 through FY1977, the majority of federal government support for energy R&D focused on fossil energy and nuclear power technologies," writes energy-policy analyst Corrie E. Clark in a report that was released to members of Congress on June 18. Retired specialist Fred Sissine also contributed to the report. That early funding included the Atoms for Peace effort to harness nuclear technologies for peaceful uses, and the post-war effort to harness fossil and nuclear energies for economic growth. In 1977, energy R&D programs were consolidated under the new Department of Energy, and the energy crisis prompted the government to begin investing in renewables and energy efficiency, the report states. Under DOE, electric systems also enjoyed modest funding. CRS considers electric systems, including energy storage and electricity delivery. In 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act infused the agency with $13 billion and directed the largest share to electric systems. In total, the U.S. government has spent just over $229 billion (in 2016 dollars) on energy R&D, with: $109.59 billion going to nuclear $54.96 billion to fossil fuels $29.35 to renewables $25.14 to energy efficiency, and $10.31 to electric systems. The Department of Defense and other agencies have expended some energy R&D funding not covered in the CRS report, but the authors note it occurred "on a much smaller scale."