“I see and agree that natural gas is an excellent bridge fuel.”
The Philippines has realized how it was too helpless to keep its power online when Indonesia, some weeks back, banned the exportation of coal. Santa Banana, we are too dependent on coal for our power requirements that such an incident could prove catastrophic to our economic development.
My problem, my gulay, is that the energy department has no other contingency plan to fall back on other than to beg for Indonesia’s mercy, asking with bended knees its government to spare us with the much needed energy source. On January 1, our Southeast Asian neighbor stopped all its coal exports after its state power utility reported dangerously low inventory levels of the fuel at its domestic power stations.
While recent reports announced that Indonesia has lifted its coal export ban on 139 companies after meeting its domestic market sales requirements, the Philippines’ wobbly energy situation and the energy department’s helplessness in providing for a viable solution have been exposed.
The Philippines’ main energy source is coal. According to government data, almost 70 percent of the 42.5 million tons of Philippine coal supply in 2020 was imported. Power generated by coal comprises about 60 percent of the country’s power mix, and in 2021 the country sourced 2.3 million tons per month from Indonesia to fuel its power plants, the energy department said.
This only means, my gulay, that the Philippines is now in danger of falling into a serious energy crisis that could further slow down growth already battered by the pandemic.
I could only blame the lack of foresight and poor planning of the people tasked to ensure power stability in the country’s energy sector. There is absolutely no plan B for this type of emergency. Where on earth do we now source the amount of power the country would miss in the face of this dire situation?
We would not have to face such an emergency had the Department of Energy (DOE) assisted Energy World Corp. (EWC) in having its Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) hooked up with the existing transmission grid. Yes, Santa Banana, you heard me right. EWC could have provided instant power to the Luzon grid had its appeal to piggyback on existing transmission lines gotten all the government’s support! Despite the technical and financial feasibility of such an arrangement, the appeal was successfully opposed by Team Energy which ironically processes coal for power generation.
This EWC project had to hurdle protracted bureaucratic red tape and cold-shoulder support from government agencies tasked to ensure stability in the country’s energy mix. The company is now building its own transmission line and switching station in order to connect the plant to the main grid. Once operational, EWC intends to install a 200-megawatt (MW) steam turbine. Similarly, the final stages of its 2-MTPA LNG facility are on track.
I also noticed an orchestrated campaign to put down natural gas as a bridge for us to achieve a net-zero carbon future.
Recall that during last year’s 26th global climate summit, or COP26 (Conference of the Parties), held between October 31 and November 12, participants agreed to reduce the increasing global temperature to within 1.5 degrees Celsius. At least 197 countries in that COP26 meeting laid out the need for the whole world to transition to low-carbon emission, notwithstanding each country’s wealth status.
It was agreed that the urgent next steps for all nations include the improvement of energy system efficiency and increased use of renewable sources (RES). Heightened RES use will have a positive impact on the environment, considering how the combustion of fossil fuels emits greenhouse gasses (GHG) that contribute to global warming.
Many countries have since embraced the strategy of harnessing natural gas as a crucial passage to a carbon-less future and this could have prompted vested interest groups to paint natural gas as a wrong alternative. It’s not as clean, they say, and it is also fossil fuel just like oil and coal – the same energy sources that the world is trying to get rid of. I could only guess the motives of the attacks on the viability of natural gas as a bridge to zero carbon future by asking this question: Which power sector would be most affected by the switch?
It has been established that the road to stabilize climate change is a dramatic reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. For years, the accepted target has been the lessening of gas emission to 80% below 1990 levels by the year 2050. To do this, we must eliminate almost all use of fossil fuels.
I see and agree that natural gas is an excellent bridge fuel. The inference is that we will harness it now, to realize short-term greenhouse gas reductions by replacing coal-fired power, then reduce or end reliance on natural gas over some time period to lock in long term greenhouse gas reductions.
