Russian Energy Producer Rosneft LNG Plant Reported Delayed for Two to Five Years

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russian energy producer Rosneft may have to delay development of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant on the Pacific island of Sakhalin for at least two years, sources said, after prices fell and financing all but dried up due to Western sanctions.

Source: www.reuters.com

>”[…] Rosneft, which has spearheaded President Vladimir Putin’s drive to increase oil and gas output and secure Russia’s energy dominance, signed an agreement with Exxon in 2013 that aimed at starting production of 5 million tonnes per year of LNG from 2018 at Sakhalin.

Russia is the world’s largest exporter of natural gas but mostly exports it by pipeline to customers in Europe. Once liquefied, natural gas can be transported by ship to customers in Asia, helping fulfill the Kremlin’s goal of finding new markets.

Two sources with direct knowledge of the project said the 2018 target was no longer realistic.

A source at Rosneft, who declined to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said the plant would most probably “be postponed for three to five years because of lack of funds and low fuel prices”.

A second source said it could be delayed for two years.

“This is not a surprise,” the source said. “The year 2018 had never been seen as the final deadline. All the stuff that’s happening – a decline in LNG prices, a slump in demand, the economic crisis – only confirms that.”

A Rosneft company spokesman said there had been no change to the project’s timeline: “Rosneft has not revised the terms for the implementation of the far east LNG project.”

Exxon’s Moscow office declined to comment. A spokesman at Exxon’s headquarters in Texas also declined to comment.

In May 2014, Rosneft and Exxon signed a deal to continue work on the LNG plant, which will be partly fed from gas produced at Sakhalin-1, an oil and gas project in which Exxon is a major investor. […]”<

See on Scoop.itGreen & Sustainable News

Advertisements

Minimum Efficiency Standards for Electric Motors to Increase – DOE

DOE’s analyses estimate lifetime savings for electric motors purchased over the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with new and amended standards (2016-45) to be 7.0 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu). The annualized energy savings—0.23 quadrillion Btu—is equivalent to 1% of total U.S. industrial primary electricity consumption in 2013.

Source: www.eia.gov

>” Nearly half of the electricity consumed in the manufacturing sector is used for powering motors, such as for fans, pumps, conveyors, and compressors. About two thirds of this machine-drive consumption occurs in the bulk chemicals, food, petroleum and coal products, primary metals, and paper industries. For more than three decades the efficiency of new motors has been regulated by federal law. Beginning in mid-2016, an updated standard established this year by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for electric motors will once again increase the minimum efficiency of new motors.

The updated electric motor standards apply the standards currently in place to a wider scope of electric motors, generating significant estimated energy savings. […]

Legislation has increased the federal minimum motor efficiencies requirements over the past two decades, covering motors both manufactured and imported for sale in the United States. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) set minimum efficiency levels for all motors up to 200 horsepower (hp) purchased after October 1997. The U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 updated the EPAct standards starting December 2010, including 201-500 hp motors. EISA assigns minimum, nominal, full-load efficiency ratings according to motor subtype and size. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 also requires DOE to establish the most stringent standards that are both technologically feasible and economically justifiable, and to periodically update these standards as technology and economics evolve.

Motors typically fail every 5 to 15 years, depending on the size of the motor. When they fail they can either be replaced or repaired (rewound). When motors are rewound, their efficiencies typically diminish by a small amount. Large motors tend to be more efficient than small motors, and they tend to be used for more hours during the year. MotorMaster+ and MotorMaster+ International, distributed by the U.S. Department of Energy and developed by the Washington State University Cooperative Extension Energy Program in conjunction with the Bonneville Power Administration, are sources for cost and performance data on replacing and rewinding motors.

Improving the efficiency of motor systems, rather than just improving the efficiency of individual motors, may hold greater potential for savings in machine-drive electricity consumption. Analysis from the U.S. Department of Energy shows that more than 70% of the total potential motor system energy savings is estimated to be available through system improvements by reducing system load requirements, reducing or controlling motor speed, matching component sizes to the load, upgrading component efficiency, implementing better maintenance practices, and downsizing the motor when possible.”<

 

See on Scoop.itGreen Energy Technologies & Development

Why Canada needs more community power | rabble.ca

See on Scoop.itGreen & Sustainable News

By Brian Iler Kirsten Iler Pro Bono

| April 25, 2013

Community power means locally owned renewable energy projects that are developed and controlled (entirely or in part) by people living in the community.

Duane Tilden‘s insight:

Under the second round of Ontario’s Feed‑in Tariff program or FIT 2.0, established under the Green Energy Act, 2009, community power advocates succeeded in getting a 10 per cent set aside of the available power grid capacity, being 25 megawatts, for community‑controlled groups. A hard-won victory, and, again, a small step in the right policy direction.

With the close of the FIT application window in January 2013, the Ontario Power Authority has reportedly received about 80-megawatts worth of community‑based applications, or nearly four times the space on the grid that was set aside for communities under the program.

Current Canadian renewable energy policies fail to capitalize on the massive social potential of community power. Policies must be redesigned in order to give ordinary citizens more access to control and experience the benefits of the growth of the renewable energy sector. This should involve setting larger capacity set-asides for community groups, and offering incentives for community participation, such as tax deductible investments (e.g. RRSPs), which proved effective in Denmark. It could also require multinationals to invest part of their profits into community-owned wind power, as has been proposed in the United Kingdom.

See on rabble.ca

Report Claims Renewable Energy Policy Bad For Washington State

See on Scoop.itGreen & Sustainable News

Olympia, Wash. — A conservative Washington state political think tank’s study says our state’s renewable energy policy is bad for the economy and environment.

Duane Tilden‘s insight:

Currently, Washington is required to draw 15-percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Washington Policy Center Director Todd Myers says the study concludes Washington could lose up to 12,000 jobs in the next seven years, and energy costs for households and businesses could skyrocket.

Myers says the study estimates a reduction in real disposable income by about $1-billion.

He says the state currently draws nearly 80-percent of its energy from hydro-energy sources, which current legislation does not define as renewable.

See on kgmi.com