JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Friday, May 9, 2025

T&T’s economy at serious risk from global climate change policies

by

Geisha Kowlessar-Alonzo
1394 days ago
20210714

T&T does not have a com­pet­i­tive ad­van­tage in pro­duc­ing re­new­able en­er­gy.

Hence, the eco­nom­ic prospects for 2070 are grim be­cause the coun­try has not es­tab­lished com­pet­i­tive in­dus­tries based on re­new­ables and has not pre­pared its hu­man re­source base to be suc­cess­ful in the net-ze­ro world.

Ad­di­tion­al­ly, the per capi­ta GDP in 2070 may be at best $22,000 as many jobs would al­so be lost.

Fur­ther, the coun­try will be im­pact­ed sig­nif­i­cant­ly by in­ter­na­tion­al cli­mate change poli­cies, warned Pro­fes­sor of Prac­tice An­drew Jupiter, Uni­ver­si­ty of the West In­dies St Au­gus­tine and Dr Pe­dro van Meurs and Van Meurs En­er­gy (VME) in a de­tailed re­search pa­per ti­tled, “Sug­gest­ed En­er­gy Tran­si­tion Pol­i­cy for Trinidad and To­ba­go, The Next 50 Years,” which was re­leased on June 30, 2021.

They ad­vised that it is cru­cial there­fore, that an op­ti­mal pol­i­cy is de­fined and im­ple­ment­ed to lead T&T through the en­er­gy tran­si­tion over the next four decades as the well-be­ing and wealth of the next gen­er­a­tion de­pend on the suc­cess of this pol­i­cy.

And yet, so far such a pol­i­cy has not been de­vel­oped, al­though T&T has com­mit­ted to its con­tri­bu­tion un­der the Paris Agree­ment, while the Gov­ern­ment has var­i­ous es­tab­lished strate­gies and plans re­gard­ing oil and gas, re­new­able en­er­gy and pow­er gen­er­a­tion.

Ac­cord­ing to the pa­per re­new­able methane, green hy­dro­gen, green am­mo­nia, green methanol, green fer­tilis­ers, green syn­thet­ic fu­els, and DAC projects will there­fore, be pro­duced in the coun­tries that are most ag­gres­sive and suc­cess­ful in at­tract­ing the large-scale pri­vate in­vest­ments re­quired for en­er­gy tran­si­tion.

But what if suc­ces­sive gov­ern­ments in T&T do not im­ple­ment an ag­gres­sive en­er­gy tran­si­tion pol­i­cy?

What if the coun­try sleep-walks to­ward 2050 in the mis­tak­en be­lief that some­how oil and gas pro­duc­tion will con­tin­ue to sup­port cheap elec­tric­i­ty, sub­stan­tial gov­ern­ment bud­gets and large ex­ports of LNG, am­mo­nia, methanol, and fer­tilis­ers?

Jupiter and Van Meurs said the coun­try will there­fore, wake up in 2050 to dis­cov­er that (as an ex­am­ple) the methanol and ce­ment in­dus­tries will have to close for lack of nat­ur­al gas and that elec­tric­i­ty pro­duc­tion must ini­ti­ate a mas­sive con­ver­sion to re­new­ables at sig­nif­i­cant costs at a time as the coun­try can no longer af­ford it.

T&T will so find out that the USA will im­port green am­mo­nia and fer­tilis­ers from Puer­to Ri­co be­cause the USA pro­tect­ed this in­dus­try with CBAM levies against am­mo­nia and fer­tilis­er im­ports from T&T and there­fore, the am­mo­nia and fer­tilis­er in­dus­tries in T&T will be closed in 2040.

Al­so, if poli­cies are not im­ple­ment­ed this coun­try will al­so dis­cov­er that the Do­mini­can Re­pub­lic has cor­nered the Caribbean green hy­dro­gen mar­ket, Bar­ba­dos will be the hub for hy­dro­gen sup­plies for large dis­tance air­craft and that large DAC projects have been im­ple­ment­ed in Pe­ru, Texas, Scot­land, Ice­land, Oman and Malaysia, but not in T&T.

Fur­ther, it will al­so wake up to dis­cov­er that Colom­bia is the main ex­porter of syn­thet­ic jet fu­els in the re­gion based on the ex­cel­lent so­lar po­ten­tial of La Gua­ji­ra and the GDP per capi­ta of T&T is down to $18,000,

“It is ex­pect­ed that af­ter COP26 var­i­ous na­tions will in­ten­si­fy their ef­forts to achieve net-ze­ro car­bon con­di­tions by 2050 or 2060.

“T&T is a ma­jor ex­porter of LNG, am­mo­nia, methanol and fer­tilis­ers. The econ­o­my will there­fore be se­vere­ly neg­a­tive­ly af­fect­ed by these world­wide poli­cies,” the pa­per said.

The 2021 UN Cli­mate Change Con­fer­ence, al­so known as COP26, is the 26th Unit­ed Na­tions Cli­mate Change con­fer­ence.

It is sched­uled to be held in Glas­gow from Oc­to­ber 31 to No­vem­ber 12, 2021 un­der the pres­i­den­cy of the UK.

Jupiter and Van Meurs said their pa­per is meant to be an ini­tial con­tri­bu­tion to a dis­cus­sion, adding that they have pre­pared it at their own ini­tia­tive and have not fi­nanced or spon­sored by any par­ty.

They said the rea­son for the pa­per is to cel­e­brate 50 years of their ser­vices in the pe­tro­le­um in­dus­try with a look at the next 50 years.

In ref­er­enc­ing the in­ter­na­tion­al frame­work the pa­per not­ed that a wide va­ri­ety of en­ti­ties and com­pa­nies have made fore­casts of pos­si­ble sce­nar­ios of the world en­er­gy de­vel­op­ments for the next 20 or 30 years, cit­ing that es­ti­mates of the In­ter­na­tion­al En­er­gy Agency (IEA) were used.

“They pub­lished re­cent­ly a re­mark­able re­port called ‘Net-Ze­ro by 2050- A Roadmap for the Glob­al En­er­gy Sec­tor” (the Roadmap).

“This re­port de­scribes a sce­nario how the world can reach a con­di­tion of net-ze­ro car­bon emis­sions by 2050. Net-ze­ro means that what­ev­er emis­sions would still take place in 2050 would be off­set by car­bon cap­ture and stor­age (CCS) or oth­er meth­ods,” the pa­per ex­plained.

It said this sce­nario is rad­i­cal­ly dif­fer­ent from the usu­al IEA Stat­ed Poli­cies Sce­nario (STEPS), which is the fore­cast based on the cur­rent poli­cies of the var­i­ous coun­tries.

Un­der STEPS, the world emit­ted 34 gi­ga­tonnes of CO2 in 2020 and this will slight­ly grow to 36 gi­ga­tonnes by 2050.

Based on this sce­nario the glob­al tem­per­a­ture rise will be 2.7 de­grees Cel­sius by 2100.

The pa­per al­so ref­er­enced that un­der the STEPS sce­nario oil de­mand will in­crease from 98 mil­lion bar­rels per day (“mb/d”) in 2019 to about 104 mb/d in 2030 and there­after sta­bilise at this lev­el.

Gas de­mand will in­crease from 137.7 tril­lion cu­bic feet (“Tcf”) per year in 2020 to 201 Tcf by 2050.

To­tal CO2 emis­sions will not in­crease strong­ly be­cause at the same time coal de­mand will de­cline sig­nif­i­cant­ly and re­new­able en­er­gy will be­come a ma­jor con­trib­u­tor to sat­is­fy­ing en­er­gy de­mand.

Al­so, un­der the Roadmap, the oil de­mand will de­cline to about 24 mb/d, but about two/thirds of this will be for non-en­er­gy use.

Gas de­mand will de­cline to about 60 Tcf, but about three/quar­ters of this will be sub­ject to CCS.

The re­main­ing emis­sions will be off­set by oth­er means, such as the gen­er­a­tion of elec­tric­i­ty based on bio­mass with CCS, the pa­per not­ed.

Key to any en­er­gy tran­si­tion strat­e­gy is the re­struc­tur­ing of the pow­er sec­tor, Jupiter and Van Meurs rec­om­mend­ed.

They not­ed that T&TEC over­sees co­or­di­na­tion and dis­tri­b­u­tion of elec­tric­i­ty and pow­er is pro­duced by In­de­pen­dent Pow­er Pro­duc­ers (IPPs) with sep­a­rate plants of var­i­ous sizes.

The to­tal in­stalled ca­pac­i­ty is 2608 MW. How­ev­er, ac­tu­al peak pow­er use is on­ly about 1400 MW.

To­tal elec­tric­i­ty con­sump­tion is 10,300 GWh (10.3 bil­lion kWh).

Es­sen­tial­ly 100 per cent of the pop­u­la­tion has ac­cess to elec­tric­i­ty, Jupiter and Van Meurs ex­plained, adding that the growth of the elec­tric­i­ty de­mand can be ex­pect­ed to be mod­est.

Even a growth of 35 per cent in GDP over the next 30 years would re­quire less growth of elec­tric­i­ty de­mand, prob­a­bly about 20 per cent, the pa­per said.

How­ev­er, the in­tro­duc­tion of elec­tric ve­hi­cles (EVs) would re­sult in a sig­nif­i­cant in­crease in elec­tric­i­ty use, Jupiter and Van Meurs said.

In to­tal, they not­ed, the peak pow­er re­quire­ments in 2050 can be pre­dict­ed to be be­low the ca­pac­i­ty al­ready in­stalled.

There­fore, new ca­pac­i­ty will not be re­quired, oth­er than for pos­si­ble re­place­ment of plants that need to be aban­doned for op­er­a­tional pur­pos­es.

The pa­per added that the tar­iffs for elec­tric­i­ty vary de­pend­ing on the type of cus­tomer.

Rates, it not­ed, were es­tab­lished in 2009 and have not been ad­just­ed since.

Based on cur­rent US$ ex­change rates, the res­i­den­tial tar­iff per kWh is de­ter­mined based on the lev­el of con­sump­tion about every 60 days.

It is $ 0.039 for the first 400 kWh, $ 0.048 per kWh for the next 600 kWh and over this lev­el $ 0.056.

The com­mer­cial rate is $ 0.062 for any amount. These tar­iffs are in ad­di­tion to cer­tain fixed charges.

The in­dus­tri­al tar­iffs are based on a com­bi­na­tion of ca­pac­i­ty charges and us­age charges for a va­ri­ety of in­dus­tri­al users de­pend­ing on size.

“T&T has so far been fol­low­ing the poli­cies of most oth­er oil and/or gas ex­port­ing coun­tries of sub­si­dis­ing en­er­gy prices to their pop­u­la­tions.

“This is in­deed a rather ef­fec­tive pol­i­cy of shar­ing the pe­tro­le­um wealth with the pop­u­la­tion,” Jupiter and Van Meurs said.

How­ev­er, they said the prob­lem with these poli­cies is that they re­sult in waste­ful en­er­gy use.

They added it will not be pos­si­ble to eco­nom­i­cal­ly de­vel­op the re­new­able re­sources of T&T for elec­tric­i­ty gen­er­a­tion against a gas price of about $ 1/MMB­tu, even as­sum­ing in­ef­fi­cient pow­er plants.

“Re­new­ables would pri­mar­i­ly com­pete against the cost of fu­el and oth­er op­er­at­ing costs of al­ready op­er­at­ing plants, be­cause no new in­stalled ca­pac­i­ty is re­quired,” the pa­per ex­plained.

And with­out sig­nif­i­cant change in cur­rent poli­cies, the in­tro­duc­tion of re­new­able en­er­gy is un­eco­nom­ic in this frame­work, it added.

“The long-term con­se­quences of not de­vel­op­ing the re­new­able re­sources could be dis­as­trous, since the cur­rent gas-based elec­tri­cal gen­er­a­tion ca­pac­i­ty will be­come use­less when nat­ur­al gas pro­duc­tion be­comes in­suf­fi­cient, and the coun­try would not have pre­pared for the even­tu­al largescale change-over to re­new­ables,” Jupiter and Van Meurs added.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored