Advertise on podcast: MyEnergy2050 Podcast

This week we speak with Sam Raszewski, a senior lecturer and Programme Director for the Oil and Gas Management program at the University of East London Royal Docks Business School. Sam has published widely on energy security and particularly about security in the European gas sector. He regularly appears on a range of international media outlets and this week we are fortunate enough to have him on our podcast.   The interview took place in early April before Russia cut off the flow of gas to Poland and Bulgaria. Nonetheless, in the intervening weeks, we can see that Sam's analysis still holds water and is even more spot-on, as the European Union and the countries in the EU, are rapidly shifting away from Russian oil and gas.   An important takeaway Sam arrives at is the role of nuclear power. What is clear, and is reflected throughout our discussion is the economic necessity of rebuilding a more robust energy system that is less dependent on imports into Europe.   The interview is valuable both in how Sam frames energy security but also in how to fix the current security of supply failures that are dominating and restricting Europe's energy market.

This week I'm discussing another wave of the Carbon Storm. I define this more in episode 39. In this episode I update what this means in a time of war. If you are looking for hope, this may not be the episode for you. This recording was done for a recruitment event I did for the EMBA program at Central European University. It has a nice live feel to it. The presentation was a great opportunity to revisit this topic of increasing high energy prices as the world attempts to shift towards a low carbon economy. These periods of high prices will only continue to plague our future. So hold on tight.

On this episode, we speak with Rod Janssen, the man behind the Energy in Demand weekly newsletter and website. He is also the president of Energy Efficiency in Industrial Process. But more aptly, Rod is a true expert in energy efficiency. As you'll hear in this episode Rod's pool of knowledge goes back to the aftermath of the 1970s oil crisis. He shares his experience from then and the renewed focus on energy efficiency to survive another energy crisis. But as we learn from this conversation, good energy efficiency takes years to be built and can't be done just by hooking up a heat pump. However, as we discuss Europe does have a good foundation on energy efficiency, if it and member states decide to actually get serious about energy efficiency. Rod shares his experience consulting SMEs in Turkey impliment and comply with EU regulations on energy efficiency. These may be EU directives and rules, but as Rod tells us, these are just good and practical policies. You can also learn why Rod loves heat pumps. I'll give you a hint, his living room in Canada holds 100 people where it gets down to minus 25 degrees. The second half of the interview we go into details about the interplay between energy efficiency and government policies. This includes how Germany became too dependent on Russian energy and companies to provide gas while also overlooking the security benefits of energy efficiency. As Rod emphasizes, energy efficiency is the 'first fuel', that is you have to look at the demand side before you expand and change the supply side of the energy system. Why build bigger power plants when investing in reducing energy demand is more cost-effective and secure? Overall, we have a lively - and entertaining - discussion on a better design to energy security - which is investing into reducing the demand for energy.  He also appeared on a previous podcast episode. The link is here.

 This week we speak with Professor Cristina Corchero, who is the Serra Hunter Professor at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. She is the founder and Chief Technology Officer at Bamboo Energy.   We begin our discussion about her experience taking research and placing it within a start-up company. Christina is a great example of a reluctant but dedicated entrepreneur. Her company, Bamboo Energy is a key component of making the smart energy system work. It is a software platform that communicates with devices in the home or factories and interfaces with the grid to ensure things like the time of day pricing can be accomplished to save users money - and help balance the grid.   Cristina's story is special because she is originally a statistician, who found love in the energy sector (ok, that's my adlib) but what she found was the ability to use statics in the energy sector to solve problems. She's taken her research and brought it out from the academic environment and is now working to scale it up in a commercial environment. We go into detail of why and how she decided to make this change.   This is a double episode in one, because you get to learn about how the smart grid works - why energy communities are essential for a sustainable energy system to develop, and you'll hear an entrepreneurial story of Christina and her bold move to transfer her research to the real world.   If you are interested to know what it is taking to make a smart energy system work, then this episode with Cristina delivers. Because it is going to take a lot of innovation and entrepreneurs to bring new technologies into the energy sector. And as we discussed in the last episode with Gerard Reid, there are lots of technologies out there that can make a huge difference. Just some of the obstacles to deployment - including the big companies - need to get out of the way.   For me this episode is special because Cristina really represents the people that I like to have on the podcast. She is breaking out from her day job and seeking to do a bit more with her knowledge and experience. People like Christina are the people creating a better energy system.    I want to thank our mutual friend Bartek Kwiatkowski, who was a guest on episode 45. For both episodes, we talk about virtual power plants, which serve to balance supply and demand. And in both these episodes, you'll hear firsthand the benefits of a decentralized and cooperative energy system. Overall, after speaking with Cristina I'm more optimistic that we do have the right people and technologies to go zero-carbon, but we do need to unleash the pent-up innovation that is ready to go.

 This week we speak with Gerard Reid, who has put out 'The 1,600 TWh Challenge: How Europe can survive without Russian Gas'. Besides outlining other routes for gas to be imported into Europe, this deeper thinking on this, is a fundamental shift for energy-intensive businesses and support for households. As you'll hear in this interview, Gerard is both practical from his financial perspective and forward-leaning on innovation and the benefits for rapid deployment of renewables.  Gerard is a Co-founder and Partner at Alexa Capital. He is also a Fellow at the Institute of the Environment at the University of Minnesota. He is also a podcaster. Gerard is the co-host of the  “REDEFINING ENERGY” podcast. Along with his blog posts, Alexa Capital also publishes forward leaning analysis of innovation in the energy sector. I've been a fan since a 2012 report that was risky in its thinking of how the energy system will evolve with a mix of smart systems, distributed generation and a reworking of the power grid. What stood out to me most in this interview, was how we delve into the topics he raised in the 1,600 TWh Challenge8. Alexa Capital acts as a middleman in consultancy and financial transactions in the energy space. As you'll hear, this provides a voice that emphasizes the ability for industry to roll out new technologies to meet our demand for cleaner energy. BUT the incumbents and the current highly regulatory structure of the energy system is preventing the deployment of innovative solutions to the current dysfunctional energy market. We get into why it is dysfunctional - a reflection on the current prices indicates the tip of the iceberg. Gerard delivers a well-articulated call for a holistic change to the energy system. From his perspective, Russia's war in Ukraine demonstrates the risks of relying on fossil fuels - and this was long in the making. Politicians and businesses failed to do their job to reduce their energy risks. Where does this leave us? Industry must become better managed (not giving subsidies to inefficient companies). As Gerard describes, the well-operated companies will survive the price hikes because they were cautious, so the current energy crisis should be used to reform our energy regulations and market to incentives and enable new energy technology to come into the market. Listen in, and you'll hear how Jerard's 1600 TWh Challenge can be done. And just a final note, until the end of May 2022, I'll be an Open Society University Network Senior Fellow, at Chatham House, at The Royal Institute of International Affairs. So the episodes between now and then will be part of my research on the shifting energy landscape in Europe.

This week we speak with Professor Kacper Szulecki, who is a research professor at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. Kacper is at the forefront of research in the broad area of energy transitions, geopolitics, and the social implications of the transition. I highly recommend any of his publications as they are strong in analysis and well-grounded research pieces.   As you'll hear, we have a wide-ranging discussion on the lead-up to Russia's war with Ukraine and then we turn to the impact an EU energy system without Russia looks like. This episode is great for giving you a background to the development and integration of Russia's energy system with the Western and Central European systems.   We come around to the topic of energy security and how the Polish perspective may be a smart one to adopt for the rest of Europe. Yes, more LNG, more pipeline gas to Norway but also a recognition that Russia is not a dependable supplier. That is, the energy as a means to push foreign policy needs to be countered by diversification in both supply sources, but also other technologies that can deliver heating for households. Through in the mix an urgency for energy efficiency, then we begin to fill-in what needs to be done to transition our economies away from Russian energy resources.   What I find so interesting about Kacper's perspective is his ability to frame the energy transition as an ongoing project that can't be derailed by war. That is, our current efforts to build a non-fossil fuel energy system should move forward, but not be derailed or distracted from War and the imposition of sanctions on Russia. Yes, the flow of gas can be disrupted, but by following the playbook laid down by Brussels, like filling up gas reserves in the summer, then excluding Russian gas from the EU holds potential.   We also delve into the topic of nuclear power and the role biomass can play as a replacement for gas. Overall, Kasper doesn't provide predictions (which is smart) but he provides both a historical account of these energy relations and then the emergence of a new energy order that was broken when Russia invaded Ukraine. As Kacper describes the relations built over the past 60 plus years were just destroyed by Russia's war in Ukraine. This includes the sinking of Rosatom nuclear projects around the globe.

My fifteen-year-old daughter sent me a text message the other night. She asked if Ukraine joins the European Union will Russia stop its attack. Sadly, I couldn't comfort her that peace would soon be restored in Europe. Rather, I told her this is the new status for Europe and probably for years to come. The future sits in stark contrast to when I was fifteen and took a school trip from Michigan to the Soviet Union in the spring of 1989. Little did I (or anyone!) know the quick and dramatic changes that would unfold through the summer and fall.   For more than three decades the peace and economic growth has transformed the world, and most dramatically the former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe - including Ukraine. I now call Hungary home and see daily the challenges the region still struggles to shift to a market-based economy and attempts to protect democracy. Sadly, until recently, there was little assistance from the United States and the European Union to ensure democratic norms were respected throughout the region.   Now we begin to write of a new militarized era rather than one marked by crumbling walls and peaceful and competitive economic growth. This past week when the German Chancellor pledged an initial 100 billion Euros for the country's military. Add in the European Union taking up arms to send to Ukraine, then we have a new unified militarized order in Europe against Russia. This is preciously what decades of politicians and average people worked to stop since the ending of the Second World War.   An isolated and militarized Russia is literally the deranged and angry caged bear that we do need to fear. Certainly, the Ukrainians are getting the first dose of this wrath and anger for plotting a democratic path and westward integration. This democratic path, where people vote in free and fair elections, with an open media landscape demonstrates the threat that an informed and educated populace can have for leaders who are more concerned by power and wealth. It is no coincidence that we see Russian oligarchs profiting from the autocratic Putin. It is also no coincidence that Russia continues its reliance on fossil fuels selling these abroad. As we know from the middle east, oil and gas are not the seeds of peace and prosperity, and democratic representation.   This brings me to framing the new energy order. We now have a militarized petrol state in Europe and Asia that is waging a war over territory and preventing a sovereign state from choosing the path its people have chosen. Of course, Africa and the Middle East know this experience well (even with war waged by democracies), but this threat in Europe now alters the calculations to rely on Russian resources while the energy transition slowly unfolds. Europe and the United States are now directly threatened by this petrol state. The energy interdependence with Russia, which was once a means to ensure peace, is now fueling war.   The injustice of a just transition is in full display in this war. The connection is direct. Russian oil and gas fuel the Russian state and its actions. If Europe wants to build a just energy transition - as it is described in its many energy policies, including Fit-for-55, then moving away from fossil fuels holds a moral imperative for Europe. Of course, climate change and attempting to save the planet should be enough, but now we have war within Europe. There is a clear need to stop using oil and gas and embrace other technologies and resources. Diversification from Russian supplies still enables these supplies to go to other buyers - although with gas at not such large quantities. The current high prices for oil and gas need to prompt a shift to other energy production and efficiency efforts.  There are three ways to reframe the energy transition to ensure a just transition unfolds by limiting dependency on Russian resources, including rare Earth minerals.

This week we speak with Jesson Bradshaw, CEO at Energy Ogre, a Texas-based consumer energy company. They help consumers save money by choosing the best energy company that can deliver their electricity or gas at the least cost.   It was a real honor to have Jesson on the podcast, as you'll hear, he is a true energy entrepreneur. Our discussion really delves into the opportunities he has been able to leverage from an open and competitive market in Texas and also across the United States. In my book, Jesson is a true energy pioneer, able to find market niches where special skills assist his clients. From large financial institutions to average families, he delivers solutions because of his deep insight into how the market works.   I want to emphasize the importance of 'the market' and 'regulations' because to learn from this episode you need to understand that when a business works with minimal regulations new and radically innovative technologies and services can develop. This episode is a case study of how Texas unleashed new technologies and kept prices low by reducing the power of monopolies and assisting the entrance of new generation technologies. And we are talking about renewables and gas-fired generation. These replaced the aging coal fleet that was limping along before deregulation.   As Jesson states, Texas is now the fifth biggest wind production in the world. It produces more power from wind than 25 other states combined - a quarter of all US wind power. How did this happen? Listen to the episode and you'll learn what markets - with low regulatory barriers can unleash.   Jesson embraces a low regulatory burden for enabling the electricity market to really develop into one based on renewables and gas that is cost-competitive. He pays the same as twenty years ago, but from more renewables in the system. This is a great episode to reflect on, and for those that know the European market - a great chance to compare and contrast Jesson's perspective on the benefits of a low regulatory barrier. But this is interesting to contrast with a more boom and bust cycle of capital that is acceptable. Unleashing the power of capital can be done in the energy sector, but there is a demonstrable balance that needs to be struck between regulation - including financial regulation, and investments that modernize and advance the energy system - without wasting too much money. But then, I think we would never have the railroads if we didn't have boom and bust cycles. Whatever your taste level is for regulation and bankruptcy this episode delivers a real inside perspective on how markets work over more than twenty years in Jesson's experience. To cap this boom and bust cycle, Jesson had Enron as a competitor but he couldn't figure out how they made so much money.. Well, for those that know Enron, they went bankrupt and gave market liberalization a pretty bad name. A lot of people lost a lot of money. And finally, we learn about Jesson's entrepreneurial ventures in the United States gas and electricity markets. He saw an opportunity, particularly in how to manage generation assets and he and a partner set up their first firm that quickly took on some of the assets that were going bankrupt. By operating them together, they could utilize the facilities better and deliver value for the new owners. And what I like best about Jesson's story - and maybe he doesn't, but that as the market matured, there came to be less demand for his services as generation ownership became consolidated. So it is also a story of evolution from when the market is freed from regulation how it develops and grows, and then over time, the players become more entrenched and can come to hold strong positions once again in the sector. Now we have Energy Ogre as a retail company offering customers new ways to manage and reduce their energy bills. The company gives new meaning to consumer-facing businesses. Are you too busy to find the best deal

Fossil Fuels are inherently inefficient and built on injustice - so why keep? The energy transition needs to reclaim a humane approach Native and marginalized communities live in an unjust transition Welcome to the MyEnergy2050 podcast where we speak to the people building a clean energy system by 2050. I'm your host Michael LaBelle.  This week we join another Energy Policy Research Group roundtable discussion from Central European University. The topic this week is reevaluating energy justice in the Anthropocene.   All parts of society need to prepare to change to deal with climate change. And our discussion provides an understanding of how energy justice can be applied to communities that are normally left out. The discussions also force us to switch our perspectives on the energy transition. It does this by flipping on its head that fossil fuel use was actually a good choice as an energy carrier. Fossil fuels perpetuate injustices and keeping them only keeps an unjust energy system in place to profit the most powerful companies and political systems.    Before I introduce the speakers, I have to thank my students for coming up with a fantastic list of speakers who provide a fundamentally different perspective on energy justice and the energy transition. We have here an amazing show that provides a broad spectrum of cutting-edge scholarship and examples of how energy justice is being applied on the ground. We are joined by three speakers. The first is Professor Ankit Kumar who is a Lecturer at the Department of Geography in Development and Environment at the University of Sheffield. The second is, Shakti Ramkumar is the Director of Communications & Policy at Student Energy, a global youth organization that works with the next generation of leaders. And Professor Cara Daggett is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Virginia Tech.   I'm being very brief on each of their bios. And my apologies for this, but I really want to briefly summarize the issues that we get into during our discussion. I think the best way to summarize the discussion is to say the speakers turn energy justice on its head and understand the energy transition not as an Earth-saving project, but actually, a process that can sustain the current power relations far into the future. With Cara pointing the built narrative that renewables will push out fossil fuels. When - according to her, there is little evidence to suggest fossil fuels will actually go away. Just this point alone is controversial, but if we look at the actual numbers in 2022 - there seems limited scope that fossil fuels will fade away anytime soon. So we should not accept that they are actually going to go away.   The energy transition is not inevitable. By turning away from a techno-socio perspective, that sees technology leading the way, society can actually be put in the center of the transition. This upending of the perspective also aligns with Ankit's position looking at the neo-colonialist perspective that we actually need MORE politics, not less, in the energy transition. By politicizing the impact of the lack of an energy transition, then the true cost and injustices of the current energy system can be exposed.   Sandwiched in-between these academic discussions is Shakti who brings a clear guide as to how younger people can participate and help build a more just energy transition. Her practical and everyday approach really highlights the impact that our abstract discussion of energy justice can have on the ground and in our cities.   What is striking about all three speakers and their topics is how well they overlap on the edges to provide a broad and deep spectrum of knowledge on the topic of groups normally marginalized in the energy transitions debate. One of the fundamental pillars of the energy transition needs to be to bring everyone along. As you'll hear in this episode, many people are being left behind.  

This week we speak with John Shattuck, Professor of Practice in Diplomacy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, at Tufts University.  He is an international diplomat and scholar. From representing the United States in a variety of human rights roles, an ambassador to the Czech Republic, and president and rector of Central European University in Budapest, John has a steadfast adherence to human rights and holding positions that enable the United States and citizens of many countries to benefit from his dedication to public service. When I thought about who to speak to concerning Russia's threats to invade Ukraine, I thought of John. And to be honest, I don't know how to frame the pressures on our current international order. These pressures, we can see and feel in high oil, electricity, and natural gas prices. But high energy prices are not the problem, there are deeper reasons for the high prices. And this is what I’m attempting to understand and why we are speaking about it on a podcast focused on energy.  I've described this in previous episodes as a 'carbon storm' where the cost of energy increases for periods of time because of instability in energy markets and political actions. The current conflict around Ukraine has taken on the form of military tension between the NATO alliance and Russia. But as we explore in this interview, there are other factors at play, such as the erosion of human rights, respect for democratic institutions, and the election of populists. I've framed this interview in a broad macro perspective of what we can learn and understand from the Cold War. I think by understanding why we have the national and international institutions that we do, we can better enable these institutions to continue on with their founding missions. Because John was on the ground in Europe and the United States, both during and after the fall of Communism, we gain an informed perspective of the roots to the current international order, and the points of instability shaking the system now. When we speak of the energy transition, it is often framed as a technological transition. The Cold War, was cold, because of the technology of nuclear arms. A direct war could not be fought because of the consequences. What we can learn about the politics and aspirations during and after the Cold War speak to the need to be aware that politics and social movements DO shape how people live and countries act. John tells a story at the start of this interview and it wonderfully underscores this point. Listen to this and you'll understand how John began a life of public service that protected and exposed failings in the respect for human rights. At the end of the interview, John also brings up the benefits of person-to-person interactions as creating and sustaining the seeds to respect and protection of peace. I think his role as president and rector of CEU, where he led the institution to educate thousands of international students, underscores just one part of his international legacy to the advancement of human rights.   References: Shattuck, John, and J. Brian Atwood. “Defending Democracy: Why Democrats Trump Autocrats.” Foreign Affairs 77, no. 2 (1998): 167–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/20048857

This week we speak with Professors Natalie Dobson an Assistant Professor at Utrecht University, Department of International and European Law and Professor Arild Moe, Senior research fellow at Fridtjof Nansen Institute. As usual I'll keep their long list of individual achievements short, but it is impressive as each is making a significant contribution to understanding relations in the Arctic. This recording is from an online roundtable discussion held at Central European University, in our Energy Policy Research Group.  I've edited the discussion for the podcast. As you will hear, there's a wealth of information to inform how we understand both the EU's policy perspective toward oil and gas exploration in the Arctic area, and Russia's ability to expand their own exploitation of the oil and gas wealth in the region. This discussion goes beyond geopolitical considerations, and delves into both the legal framing the EU is attempting to implement and also the strategic decision making done by the Russian state. The key topics that are covered in this discussion fall under three broad headings: EU Policies, Russian Policies and Climate Change and the Arctic. Specifically, nine questions are answered: EU Policies Why is EU policy towards the Arctic important?   How has EU Arctic policy changed over time?   How does the EU attempt to influence Arctic policy?     Russian Policies What are Russian policies towards oil and gas exploration in the Arctic?   What is the impact of LNG on Russian gas policies?   What is the history of foreign investment into the Russian oil and gas sector in the Arctic?   Climate change and the Arctic How important is the Arctic to combating climate change?   What is the impact of a warming climate on oil and gas exploration in the Arctic?   Should there be a global freeze on oil and gas extraction from the Arctic?     In addition to these questions we have a short discussion about the impact of sanctions and what a war in Ukraine could mean in terms of Western sanctions on the Russian oil sector. And a final note for regular listeners. The past few episodes of the podcast were sparse, as I also came down with Covid - along with half the world. All I can say is thank goodness for the three shots.  Moving forward I'll do my best to get back on the weekly schedule. The intent of the MyEnergy2050 podcast is to spread the knowledge about how the energy system can assist our transition towards a greener future.

This week Michael LaBelle provides a rough description of why the EU has lost its soft power.   Rising gas prices, the military aggression of Russia, and rule of law breaches in former Communist states are heralding a new era for the EU. This 'post-acquis' era is marked by rising nationalism and populism which undermine the foundation of the EU's soft power.   The question that needs to be answered is, 'Why did the EU lose its soft power?' This question cannot be answered without including the hard power of NATO.   The Post-Cold War environment saw NATO's eastern expansion, which is now questioned by the hard military might of Russia. The expansion of democracy in former communist countries, once represented by EU membership, represents a new socio-political system expressing soft power. At the same time, the hard power of NATO also went East. Jointly, these institutions now are perceived to threaten the borders and sovereignty of Russia.   The EU has been slow, and even incapable of acting against its own member states who have discounted the democratic norms which are the foundation of the European Union. The EU's soft power derives from a descriptive cultural experience of individual liberty and respect for human rights. The Cold War-era institutions of the Helsinki Commission, European Court of Human Rights, and others symbolize a common pursuit of both the Soviet and Western countries to establish common rights within Europe. Now, these institutions are sidelined as nationalists and populists reclaim sovereignty given over to these Cold War institutions, including the EU.   The EU's Single Energy Market (SEM) was built and functioned as a place for companies and governments to 'come and play' (as Goldthau and Sitter state). Money could be made by neighboring countries selling gas and electricity by the rules within the SEM. However, over time, as competition and neoliberal rules took over from national governments' long-term agreements with Russia, participation in the EU's SEM was not a favorable place to play.   Gas is now near-enough, thanks to LNG and new pipelines, a global commodity. Russian gas is breaking the Soviet gas bridge and finding alternative buyers. For most companies and countries wanting to play in the SEM, there are other places to sell their gas. During the Cold War, gas was more than a commodity, it was a tool to build relations between the Soviet Union and Western (and even Eastern) countries. And to transfer money and technology. This was soft power at play. The Western European countries were attractive for their cash, knowledge, and business relations that could be developed over time. Thus, gas, while a commodity was also a relational tool creating trust and commerce between two different political-economic systems.   The downgrading of gas to a mere commodity overseen by market rules and regulations favoring consumers, means producers are no longer incentivized to participate in a market that has strings attached. The SEM is described by scholars, as a soft power tool with a hard edge. Meaning the market is attractive to foreign and domestic entities who will play in the market, but there are hard rules and regulations which dictate how participation is done. For Russia in 2021 and 2022, participation is defined as satisfying contractual commitments, but not sending higher levels of 'free' gas to participate in the market.   The EU's soft power is also undermined from within by member states. The growth of populism and nationalism delivers scathing blows against the legitimacy of the European project. NATO was a product of the Cold War - expressing hard power. But the EU is a product produced from World War Two seeking stability and being founded on a common platform of not only economic union, but also political and social union to prevent war between European countries. Therefore, the EU cannot be defined only through rules, regulations, and legislat