Oman and EU target energy synergies through innovation and storage
The Sultanate Oman and the European Union (EU) are exploring deeper collaboration to accelerate the energy transition through innovative technologies, smarter infrastructure, and long-duration storage systems. This was the key message that emerged from a session of the EU-Oman Energy & Water Collaboration Forum, held recently in Muscat under the theme 'How Can Oman and the EU Work Together to Optimise the Energy Mix?'
The high-level panel brought together energy experts from Oman and Europe to explore how partnerships can help optimise energy resources, enhance grid resilience, and support Oman's ambitious sustainability targets.
Moderator Said al Kamyani, Sustainability Specialist, set the tone by highlighting the urgency of building diversified and secure energy systems. He guided the discussion across a range of topics, including regulatory frameworks, advanced technologies, and the growing role of energy storage in stabilising renewables.
Thuraiya al Wahaibi, Senior Product Engineer at Nama Power and Water Procurement (Nama PWP), shared Oman's clean energy targets of 30% renewables by 2030 and 60% by 2040, alongside net-zero emissions by 2050. She outlined Nama PWP's roadmap, which includes more than eight upcoming solar and wind projects, as well as ongoing studies into pumped hydro and geothermal energy.
'Oman's regulatory environment and public-private partnership model are strong foundations,' she said, 'but scaling up will require stronger collaboration on technologies like smart grids, storage, and system integration.'
Dr Yves-Laurent Beck, Hydropower Project Manager at French utility EDF, emphasised the suitability of pumped hydro energy storage for Oman's mountainous terrain. Citing EDF's global expertise and its work on the Hatta Pumped Storage Plant in the UAE, he advocated for long-term collaboration and capacity-building in Oman.
'Pumped hydro with variable-speed turbines can offer flexibility and grid stability, particularly as renewable energy sources become dominant,' Dr Beck noted.
Storage solutions were further explored by Paul Smith, Senior Vice President of Global Sales at Energy Dome. He introduced the company's CO₂ Battery—an innovative long-duration storage solution with a 30-year lifespan that uses carbon dioxide in a closed cycle. 'Our technology is a cost-effective answer to grid intermittency and is fully compatible with green hydrogen production,' Smith explained. 'Oman's ambition to lead in hydrogen makes it an ideal partner for such solutions.'
Henrico van den Boomen, CEO of Eigenenergie.net, stressed the importance of modernising grid infrastructure in parallel with the rollout of renewables. Drawing from the Dutch experience, he cautioned against underestimating the complexity of grid adaptation.
'Europe faced delays due to slow planning on local balancing and smart systems,' he said. 'Oman has the advantage of foresight—now is the time to invest in decentralised systems and advanced energy management.'
Khalfan Naser Said al Burtamani, Chief Commercial Officer at Nama Electricity Distribution, shared Oman's progress in digital infrastructure. He pointed to the deployment of smart meters—now covering 77% of the system—and the SABIQ prepayment platform.
'Advanced Metering Infrastructure is a game-changer,' he said. 'But we also need policies that keep pace with innovation, especially as grid pressure, cybersecurity and resilience become more complex.'
The session closed with a consensus on the need for flexible, forward-looking regulatory frameworks and stakeholder coordination. Panellists agreed that technologies like CO₂ batteries and pumped hydro are essential to support the stability and scalability of Oman's renewable and hydrogen ambitions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
2 days ago
- Observer
European Union's flawed investment strategy
Last year, former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi produced a landmark report on the future of European competitiveness, in which he recommended that the European Union increase annual investment by more than €800 billion ($930 billion) – the equivalent of more than 4% of its GDP. This report has now become the intellectual foundation for an ambitious strategy to revitalize growth in Europe. But Europe should be careful what it wishes for. As Japan has shown, investment is no panacea. The idea that more investment is the key to economic success is a potent one in Europe. The so-called Lisbon Strategy, launched in 2000, sought to increase investment in research and development to 3% of GDP. That target has remained on the official EU agenda for a quarter-century, but has never been reached. In 2015, the European Commission added another investment goal: its Investment Plan for Europe sought to mobilize €315 billion in additional investment within three years, in order to increase competitiveness and long-term growth. But investment has not saved Japan from several decades of stagnation. Since 1970, Japan's gross fixed capital formation has averaged – and, often, significantly exceeded – 30% of GDP. That is much higher than not only the EU average, but also the rate in Germany, the EU's strongest economy, where gross fixed capital formation has hovered around 23% of GDP. The four-percentage-point difference between the most recent values (26% in Japan, and 22% in both Germany and the EU) amounts to about €800 billion annually – exactly the amount Draghi recommends adding to total EU investment. Of course, the type of investment matters. Whereas investment in new machinery leads to diminishing returns once a company has enough capacity to serve the market, investing in new ideas should theoretically be bound by no such constraints. But if one singles out R&D investment, Japan performs even better. In 2000, when the EU set its Lisbon Strategy target, Japan was already investing nearly 3% of its GDP in R&D – a rate it has maintained over the last 25 years, compared to the EU's average of 2%. Flags are seen behind the logo of the European Investment Bank pictured in the city of Luxembourg, Luxembourg. — Reuters And yet, despite impressive rates of investment in fixed capital and R&D, Japan's economy weakened over the last quarter-century. In the 1980s and 1990s, Japan boasted the world's second-largest economy, powered by a manufacturing sector that seemed unbeatable. Now, Japan is the world's fourth-largest economy, having recently fallen behind Germany despite having a much larger population (120 million, compared to 80 million), owing partly to yen depreciation. One might argue that this is an unfair comparison, because evaluating an economy at current exchange rates, without accounting for inflation differentials, does not adequately reflect quality of life. But if one looks at per capita income at purchasing power parity, Japan was at rough parity with Germany 20 years ago, and is now doing worse than Italy. In any case, exchange rates are not irrelevant, at least politically: Japanese are well aware of their declining purchasing power when they travel abroad, and they undoubtedly notice foreign tourists flaunting their purchasing power in Japan. This may have helped to create fertile ground for the far right. So, what explains Japan's economic underperformance? The answer is not unfavorable demographics. In fact, Japan's population is not shrinking nearly as fast as conventional wisdom suggests, having fallen since the turn of the century by only three million, to just under 124 million last year, with employment increasing by ten percentage points. To explain Japan's struggles requires looking behind the headline investment figures. While investment in R&D is strong, it is happening mostly within large firms, which are primarily interested in delivering incremental improvements to existing products or processes, rather than developing radically new ideas or technologies. True innovation is much more likely to happen in startups, but in Japan – as in the EU – the largest spenders on R&D have remained the same for decades. Large companies have recognized the limitations of their in-house R&D efforts. Some have even created specialized Corporate Venture Capital (CVC) departments, tasked with hunting for promising ideas outside their corporate structures. But, in 2022, the leading spenders on R&D in Japan accounted for only 7.3% of global CVC investment. That is about one-third of EU companies' share (22%), but given that the EU economy is about four times the size of Japan's, these levels are similar, in relative terms. The EU did much better than Japan by another measure, however: over 40% of European firms' CVC investment went to local startups. In Japan, that share was miniscule – 0.01% – with the rest going mostly to start-ups in the United States. Furthermore, US and even Japanese companies have delivered substantial CVC funding to EU companies, which attracted a total of about 9% of global CVC funding in 2022. That is much less than the 80% that went to the US, but also significantly more than the tiny share – close to zero – that flowed into Japan. The lesson for the EU is clear: rather than focusing simply on increasing investment, it should seek to nurture and fortify its innovation ecosystem. Only then will it be able to deliver the kinds of game-changing ideas and inventions that underpin global competitiveness in the twenty-first century. Project Syndicate
Observer
5 days ago
- Observer
Where is the global resistance to Trump?
America's critics have always depicted it as a selfish country that throws its weight around with little regard for others' well-being. But President Donald Trump's trade policies have been so misguided, erratic and self-defeating as to make even the most cartoonish of such descriptions seem flattering. Still, in a twisted way, his trade follies have laid bare other countries' failures as well, by forcing them to consider what their responses say about their own intentions and capabilities. It is said that one's true character is revealed in the face of adversity, and the same goes for countries and their political systems. Trump's frontal assault on the world economy was a shock to everyone, but it also gave Europe, China and various middle powers an opportunity to make a statement about who they are and what they stand for. It was an invitation to articulate a vision of a new world order that could overcome the imbalances, inequities and unsustainability of the old one, and that would not depend on the leadership – for better or worse – of a single powerful country. But few rose to the challenge. In this respect, the European Union has perhaps been the greatest disappointment. In terms of purchasing power, it is almost as large as the United States – accounting for 14.1 per cent of the world economy, compared to 14.8 per cent for the US and 19.7 per cent for China. Moreover, despite the recent rise of the far right, most European countries have avoided backsliding into authoritarianism. As a collection of democratic nation-states whose geopolitical ambitions do not threaten others, Europe has both the power and the moral authority to provide global leadership. Instead, it dithered and then submitted to Trump's demands. Europe's ambitions were always narrowly parochial; but in folding to Trump, it is not even clear that it served its own immediate interests. The July handshake deal between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen leaves 50 per cent tariffs on European exports of steel and aluminium, places 15 per cent tariffs on most other exports, and commits Europe to ridiculously high levels of energy imports from the US. Rarely has the EU's structural weakness as a confederation of countries without a collective sense of identity been on starker display. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva has emerged as the rare exemplary leader who refuses to grovel at Trump's feet. China has played a tougher game, retaliating forcefully with its own tariffs and restricting exports of critical minerals to the US. Trump's vindictive, self-defeating foreign policies have helped China extend its influence and enhance its credibility as a reliable partner for the developing world. But the Chinese leadership has also failed to articulate a practical model for a post-neoliberal global economic order. Notably, China has shown little interest in addressing the two global imbalances that it has caused with its own large external surplus and excess of domestic savings over investment. Meanwhile, smaller countries and middle powers have mostly played the quiet game, pursuing independent bargains with Trump and hoping to limit the damage to their own economies. The exception is Brazil, whose president, Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva, has emerged as the rare exemplary leader who refuses to grovel at Trump's feet. Despite facing punitive 50 per cent tariffs and pointed personal attacks, he has proudly defended his country's sovereignty, democracy and independent judiciary. As the New York Times puts it, 'There is perhaps no world leader defying President Trump as strongly as Mr Lula.' Such leadership has been sorely lacking around the world. In India, the political commentator Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out that many business and political elites are searching for ways to accommodate Trump. But in doing so, Mehta argues, they are misreading him and the world he is creating. At any other time in recent history, the Trump administration's behaviour would immediately be called out for what it is: imperialism – plain and simple. Imperialism must always be challenged – not accommodated – and that requires both power and purpose. Of course, America has held the reins of the world economy for a very long time. The dollar is firmly entrenched, and the US market remains singularly important. But these advantages are not as strong as they used to be. It would defy political logic and the laws of economic gravity if a country controlling only 15 per cent of the world economy (in terms of purchasing power parity) could dictate the rules of the game to everyone else. Though the rest of the world remains divided, surely everyone has a common interest in repelling Trumpian imperialism – and thus in uniting to resist his demands. Finding common purpose is perhaps the bigger challenge. If Trump 'wins", it will be because other large economies were unable (or unwilling) to articulate an alternative framework for the global economy. Pining after traditional multilateralism and global cooperation – as many targets of Trump's ire have done – is of little use and merely signals weakness. The world needs new ideas and principles for avoiding both the instabilities and inequities of hyper-globalisation and the destructive effects of beggar-thy-neighbour policies. It is not realistic to expect a new Bretton Woods agreement. Nevertheless, middle powers and large economies can still model such principles by putting them to work in their own policies. Trump's actions have held up a mirror to others, and most should recognise that their reflection is not a pretty sight. Fortunately, their apparent helplessness has been self-imposed. It is not too late to choose self-confidence over humiliation. @Project Syndicate, 2025
Observer
07-08-2025
- Observer
Trump's tariffs on dozens of countries to take effect
US President Donald Trump's tariffs on imports from European Union members and dozens of other countries were set to take effect on Thursday. Just minutes before the tariffs were due to kick in, Trump announced on his Truth Social platform that they would take effect at midnight Washington time (0400 GMT). In a post, he wrote: "BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, LARGELY FROM COUNTRIES THAT HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE UNITED STATES FOR MANY YEARS,LAUGHING ALL THE WAY, WILL START FLOWING INTO THE USA." The European Commission had so far assumed that the new tariff rate would apply as of Friday. The new and varied tariff rates affect imports from around 70 countries, including the 27 EU member states. The EU has pledged to make significant investments in the US alongside accepting the 15% tariff. The exact terms and timing of those investments are still under negotiation. Trump has defended his aggressive tariff policy by pointing to alleged trade deficits that he says threaten US national security,framing the issue as a national emergency that requires such measures. His approach has sparked legal major trade partners - China and Mexico - are on different tariff timelines as trade negotiations continue. Trump has meanwhile threatened, or already ordered, additional tariffs on countries accused of conducting business with Russia,arguing such ties indirectly support Moscow's war against Ukraine.
