My Energy 2050 Podcast

(Ep. 57) Speeding up the Transition: Breaking EU-Russian Energy Relations

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.

(Ep. 56) Europe’s new Energy Order: Climate to Security — Michael LaBelle

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.

(Ep. 55) The Energy Entrepreneur: Unleashing technology and opportunity in Texas — Jesson Bradshaw

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 and compare deals? Because that is what you get to do in Texas, choose your utility provider. Well, Energy Ogre is set up with a power data system to crunch and compare the packages that consumers benefit the most from. By creating consumer profiles, they can offer the best package for their customers - and switch them when there is a better offer.
Overall, it is these entrepreneurial stories that Jesson describes which really show he did not take the easy path to set up businesses that had a strong market niche. That is, he took a highly complex landscape and he and his partner had the knowledge to navigate and build two successful businesses. What he is doing is beyond rocket sciences, because he needs to deliver a retail product to consumers, and at the same time engage with the complexities and dominance of established utilities. These are not businesses for risk-averse people (I feel even better about my job now).

(Ep. 54) The Politics of Energy Justice in the Anthropocene — the roundtable

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.
 
The intent of the MyEnergy2050 podcast is to spread the knowledge about how the energy system can assist our transition towards a greener future
 
And now for this week's episode.

(Ep. 53) The Right to Democracy: How Cold War institutions secure Europe — John Shattuck

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

(Ep. 52) The Arctic Energy Pivot: EU and Russian opportunities and divisions — Natalie Dobson and Arild Moe

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.

(Ep. 51) The Soft Power Failure of the EU: Russia walks off — Michael LaBelle

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 legislation, but through social and political norms that perceive democracy and individual liberty as foundational to society.
 
Breaches of the rule of law perceived to be happening in Hungary and Poland, demonstrate an effort by the EU to reclaim a semblance of democratic norms under an overly prescriptive governance system. For these two countries and others negating the acquis that guided their EU membership by conforming legislation and social systems to an EU norm, meant sacrificing Communist practices of non-market economies and social control.
 
In a post-acquis era, returning to Communist top-down political management appears to be the best way to deliver low-cost energy and societal control. There's little space for democracy or expression of individual rights. While the hard power of Russia may not appeal to the Polish government, the nationalistic and populistic tendencies are a return to a form of governance that the parties in power in both Hungary, Poland, and Russia appreciate. And, depending on how you count, over fifty percent of voters support this form. Legitimacy from the ground-up or from the top-down? For nationalists, there is no question.
 
The soft power of the EU, to be attractive while also persuading partners to be democratic and neoliberal in commerce is lost. The built-up EU institutions and mechanisms, seen in the SEM or the European Emission Trading System (ETS) provide stringent rules and regulations, not all member states are willing to abide by. Add to that democratic norms, such as respect for press freedom, then membership to the EU has a high cost.
 
Unfortunately, for the EU, holding soft power, means you can't kick out those that do not play by your rules. But they can choose to leave. The UK and Russia have decided they are better off not playing by the EU's rules. For Hungary and Poland, they decided it's better to stay in but pay no attention to the rules. For the EU, to build back its soft power, some hard power could be useful.

(Ep. 50) Talking Nuclear: Listening lessons for all net-zero technologies — Adrian Bull

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 speak with Adrian Bull, who is the Chair of Nuclear Energy and Society at the University of Manchester, and has been at the British Nuclear Laboratory for more than 20 years.
 
I wanted to have Adrian on to discuss the potential upswing in support for nuclear power. This is seen in the EU Commission proposing that nuclear is considered green power. Also, the rapid price increase in gas may be leading governments to look for long-term power solutions. However, Adrian's response is telling. He reflects back on a ten-year social media post, where he was projecting the last decade would be a new nuclear era. Well, as we all know that didn't happen.
 
I always consider nuclear a special case. First, it is extremely divisive. It provides essentially  carbon-free electricity, but this benefit is countered by the long-term radioactivity of nuclear waste - and the challenges of storage. Second, new nuclear power plants are extremely expensive upfront, and as we discuss, it requires government financial support. And finally, the projected lifetime from building to decommissioning is decades and decades. Nuclear requires serious social and political support. The shutting down of viable nuclear power plants in Germany demonstrates what happens when there is a loss of political and social support.
 
The focus of the interview, and the key take-aways are not the technical issues around nuclear. Rather, it is about understanding the social aspect of nuclear power. We explore how the nuclear industry is interacting with society. And if you think the nuclear sector is unique, you'll be surprised how our discussion develops. The lessons learned from nuclear power and public engagement can easily be applied to other energy generation projects, like wind and solar farms.
 
Regardless of your opinion ON nuclear power, our discussion around: 1) public engagement; 2) risk management; 3) Scientific knowledge engagement in the media. As Adrian describes, the history of nuclear power is not about the failure of the technology, but rather about finance and communication. The perception of the public and policymakers shapes the energy system.
 
This observation is highly relevant when we speak of the energy transition and how to make it happen. In some countries, nuclear power will have a role, for others, absolutely not. But regardless of the technology the issues of financing, risk perception each shape the energy system in a country.
 
My final suggestion is when you listen to this episode, to keep a broader frame of the whole energy system in mind. We delve into consideration of the generation technology in an energy mix, because if it's not nuclear what is it?
 
And just a note for frequent listeners. I updated the website over the holiday period. We are growing our episode list, so now we have a better search function and a more categories to organize the episodes. You can also now subscribe to the podcast on more podcast apps as well.
 
And finally, on the website you can sign up for episode updates, and the forthcoming newsletter. The podcast listener community continues to grow and I'm amazed by this. Feel free to share the episodes and think about using them as a resource for teaching and research. I post the transcripts and each episode contains historical accounts of a sector and the most recent policy discussions.
 
The intent of the MyEnergy2050 podcast is to spread the knowledge about how the energy system can assist our transition towards a greener future

(Ep. 49) Building the EU‘s Gas Transition with Russia — Thierry Bros

This week we speak with Thierry Bros, he's a professor at Sciences Po in Paris. In the introduction I use the term  'eminent expert on gas' and after listening to this interview you will be using this term too.
On the podcast, I try to keep introductions short but pay attention to his experience on the EU- Russian gas roundtable or his lead with the liberalization of the French gas market. I'm really honored for him to come onto the podcast to discuss his latest study done with Jean-Arnold Vinois, published by the Jacque Delors Energy Centre, titled, High Energy Prices, Russia Fights Back? In my opinion, this is one of the best reports on the current crisis in the gas market. It is direct, clear, and full of advice and information.
Thierry provides a succinct path for how the European Commission - and national governments need to navigate the current crisis and overall energy transition. He is very clear in stating, we can't jump from 2020 to 2050. In his view, the Commission forgot this.
In this episode, we balance his perspective between the market deciding on the technologies to get us to net-zero, and governments subsidizing our way through a green transition. That is, making energy affordable to households but smoothing the volatility that is caused by phasing out fossil fuels- and the natural rhythm of commodity markets.
There is €30 billion coming from the EU's Emissions Trading System (ETS), this money should be used to assist households with the transition and put into R&D for new technologies - not given to large corporations to fund incremental improvements.
Towards, the end we get to Russia- EU gas relations. Here Thierry's perspective is clear: The EU Commission needs to step up and engage with Russia over Nord Stream and the medium-term role of gas in the EU. He cites the disparaging treatment the EU has given towards Russia on the role of gas in the green transition. As EU suppliers dry up - like the Dutch and Norwegian fields, Russian gas is increasing its share in the EU. A long-term strategy needs to be developed to ensure sufficient investment occurs to weather the transition phase. For Thierry, he believes in the long-term viability of Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS).
But I would say, regardless of your view on CCS, gas is with us for the long-term, the current under investments, and high prices, like what I discussed with Adam Cyzewski, the Chief Economist of PKN Orlean, in episode 44, it is clear, jumping to a 2050 energy mix, without a deliberate strategy over infrastructure and without ensuring stable relations with gas suppliers, is not viable. Rather, a phased transition is needed that involves specific milestones and partnerships.
My suggestion is to listen to this episode and read the gas report, you'll learn a lot about the causes and solutions to the current gas prices.
Finally, there is an incredible amount of information in these podcast episodes - just like this one - I do make the transcripts available on the My Energy 2050 website. Just as a note, I'll be using these interviews to inform my own research, so if you are also a researcher, I suggest you check out the transcript - and even cite the episode in your publications. That actually helps my own citation scores and makes doing the podcast more fun than writing another journal article.
Finally, for comments, I suggest to jump on the LinkedIn or Twitter posts of the episodes and leave comments there. Social media is a great way to share knowledge and grow the quantity of high-quality information about how to make the energy transition a reality.

(Ep. 48) Seeking Stability & Circularity for European Metals — Chris Heron and Cillian O‘Donoghue

The complexity of manufacturing from a global supply chain has never been more apparent than now. With supply shortages caused by the impact of Covid-19 and efforts to combat climate change, we are entering a new period, as I have stated in the past about Carbon Storms, where a confluence of events disrupt or place pressure on once stable markets.
 
At the end of 2021, there are shortages even with the common material of magnesium, with European production of cars, planes, and other lightweight aluminum alloys ceasing. The global shortage of computer chips sent the message of how integrated - and tight - global supply chains are. Now as Europe continues to produce everyday products like cars, but also higher-tech equipment necessary for the energy transition, there is a serious supply problem for European industry.
 
For this episode, we are joined by Chris Heron and Cillian O'Donoghue. Cillian, As you'll hear, the interview with these representatives of the European Metals Association (Eurometaux)  is perfect timing to understand both the current shortages and what is needed to improve the situation for European manufacturers.
 
I think you'll find many parts of this episode surprising. And certainly informative. Previously, I just thought Europe needed to be producing everything at home to ensure the security of supplies for these materials, but as you'll also find out, bringing it back home, may not be the answer.
 
Europe's high energy prices and other key competitive factors, making the rebuilding industry a challenge. Rather, diversification of sourcing may be a more competitive and secure way forward.
 
Also, bringing back industry to Europe - requires lower priced energy. The factory has to be competitive in Europe. And now with the big effort to decarbonize power and electrify everything, rebuilding the European smelting and resource sector may be beyond the rationale.
 
In terms of energy, as Cillian points out, smelters and factories can use wind and solar, but these are intermittent power sources, so it's necessary to develop large scale storage options - Hydro is a great example, but for other sources, a steady supply is important to ensure continual operation. This is not to say it can't be done, but the challenges are there.
 
In regards to building the circular economy, we put our hands down into the recycling box to find out that recycling can happen in the sector. But as Chris points out, the materials going into batteries or other new technologies are not at a sufficient level within the economy to create a recycling loop. Therefore, we need to rely on raw materials to build up a base for recycling.
 
We then get to the sources of raw materials. How can the industry source the materials from mines or locations that do have high environmental and social standards?  As I've discussed in previous episodes, Maty .. And Martin..  Verifying the supply chain becomes very important.
Towards, the end we get to the carbon border adjustment mechanism that is being proposed by the EU Commission, to ensure that materials brought into the EU are made with sustainable energy. However, according to Chris and Cillian,  this turns out to be deficient in its application. Listen to find out why.