I recently saw a map of the Nord Stream Project pipeline, linking Russia and Germany. It runs under the Baltic Sea, following very close to the seabed boundaries between Russia and Finland and Estonia and Finland before entering Swedish water. It then enters German waters near the German-Polish subsea boundary.
Why is this being done? Surely land based construction is more economical (both in capital and operating costs) than a sea based pipeline?
The answer is political. I remember the Russia-Ukraine gas disputes of 2005, and I fully understand the reason for the Nord Stream Project (it bypasses several countries, and delivers gas directly to the customer – in this case Germany). It got me thinking about how our politicians have created greenhouse gas. And for those of you thinking that politicians are full of hot air, I am talking about carbon based emissions due to inefficient infrastructure instead of political speaking. I could talk about politicians with hot air (generally I agree with your thinking) but let’s stick to inefficient infrastructure.
The movement of energy is a very basic requirement of infrastructure. Power lines for electricity, pipelines for gas and refined and unrefined petroleum products, and highways for distribution of the liquid products are a requirement of our society. It takes energy to run these energy infrastructures, and inefficiency in these infrastructures will create more greenhouse gas. Let’s consider how politics has created inefficiency.
Pipelines …
Where do I begin to discuss the carbon emissions caused by pipelines. How about the BTC (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan) pipeline from Azerbaijan to Turkey. Due to political tensions between Azerbaijan and neighbouring Armenia (which I will not discuss further) it was decided the pipeline would not travel through Armenia, which increased the length. Going around Armenia to the south would mean the pipeline would pass through Iraq – and western funding would not allow this. Thus, the pipeline travels north around Armenia, which probably adds at least 50 km to its over 1750 km length. That is 3 percent extra length. That is 3% more pump power required, which results in more carbon emissions. For the life of the pipeline.
Another is a companion to the Nord Stream Project … the South Stream Project. This pipeline will take gas from the Russian Black Sea port of Dzhubga under the Black Sea to the Bulgarian port of Varna, where it will enter the EU market. I expect it would be cheaper and more efficient to loop or expand the existing land-based pipelines, but they pass through the non-EU nations of Belarus and Ukraine. Again, I do not know how much greenhouse gas this project will cost over the politically unacceptable but engineering logical alternatives.
I am sure there are more …
Lack of Pipelines …
Our politicians have also prevented pipelines from being constructed at all. While this has resulted in the birth and growth of the LNG industry, what changes would be possible if there was “open access” to pipelines? Consider two countries … India and South Korea. Both are connected by land to mainland Asia. Both have land access to natural gas (India from Iran and Pakistan, South Korea from Russia, China, and North Korea). Yet political relations between the countries involved have resulted in India and South Korea needing to import LNG. Gas could be transported by pipeline from the Middle East, through Iran and Pakistan into India over terrain that is not restrictive to pipelines, but politics prevents this from happening. Gas could also be transported from Siberia through Russia, China, and North Korea to South Korea but again, politics prevents this from happening. It is very energy intensive to convert natural gas to liquid form, and this energy intensive activity creates greenhouse gases.
Electricity …
Finally, let’s examine electricity, and how our politicians again interfered, but tried to remedy the situation through compromise. South America has two electrical frequencies … 50 Hz in the southwest (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, and the Arequipa region of Peru), and 60 Hz elsewhere (Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela) in the north and east of the continent. The three small countries on the northeast coast that were not Spanish or Portuguese colonies vary: Guyane (French) is 50 Hz, Suriname (former Dutch) is 60 Hz, and Guyana (former British) is a mix of both 50 and 60 Hz. This difference in frequency prevents electricity (and commerce) from passing freely across borders. But the governments of Paraguay and Brazil at least worked together on the Itaipu Dam on the Parana River. This large hydroelectric dam has 20 generators … 10 for Paraguay (generating 50 Hz) and 10 for Brazil (generating 60 Hz). While this looks like a good solution, consider what happens in periods of low water flow in the river. Brazil gets 19% of its electricity from the dam. Potentially, it can replace this with internal natural gas or ethanol fired electricity production. Paraguay, on the other hand, gets 90% of its electricity from the dam, and alternative supply is unlikely. If both nations had the same frequency, Brazil could sell power on the spot to Paraguay. That very simple solution, unfortunately, is not possible.
I am sure there are others. I believe we should be putting pressure on our politicians to manage carbon themselves, instead of completely outsourcing management to us.