Connect with us

Column

Bread Of Sorrow

Published

5 years ago

on

Bread of Sorrow is the pressure, the angst and disappointment we experience in any aspect of our struggle as a people or individual, when we gain nothing in the process.
In the book of Psalms chapter 127 verse 2, King David wrote:
“It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late to eat the bread of sorrow”
According to him, the Lord blesses His people even when they are asleep. The implication of the phrase “Bread of Sorrow” is anxiety and vain struggle to profit for the good things of life especially in the absence of divine direction. However, eating the bread of sorrow could refer to misadventures and the futility in the struggle for good things of life in all sectors of the economy.
Many eat the bread of sorrow in their every day enterprises in a dislocated and unsustainable economy like Nigeria. This happens to a large percentage of Nigerians in the political space. It will not be wrong to say that the young people who embarked on #ENDSARSProtest are “eating the Bread of Sorrow” right now.
How else can one explain the fact that rather than receive proper attention from the powers that be, the reward they are getting is freezing of their accounts and litigations in courts, instituted by those who ordinarily should be part of the struggle. They are subjected to different manner of rejection and frustration even from those who had earlier endorsed their struggle as legitimate.
The young people were brutalized on different fronts by their mates who hijacked the struggle and others in uniform. These same renegades had ruined the peaceful protest by embarking on looting and destroying public property. The denial by government that no one was killed at the Lekki toll gate debacle is a packaged bread of sorrow for the youths, who spent their money and time all day to fight against police brutality and bad government in Nigeria.
All Nigerians who saw and cheered these young ones are eating the bread of sorrow. The expectation of concerned Nigerians was that for the first time in the history of Nigeria, the young people were taking their destinies in their hands and real change was going to happen. The thinking was that the leaders would eat the humble pie and heed to the anticipated demands that could reform the police and usher in a just society.
They all ate the bread of sorrow, all whose dream of living in a Nigeria where young enterprising youths will be allowed to live out their dreams without threat by law enforcement agents. Some of the demands of the youths would have become a trigger that would push the much talked about restructuring of Nigeria.
A state police with a human face would reduce police brutality. A well paid police operative would reduce corruption in the system. The reward system in Nigeria is one in which bad governance has led every employee in the labour sector to the table served with the bread of sorrow. The situation is like the proverbial “working like the elephant and eating like an ant”.
Teachers, university lecturers, civil servants are on this table served with the bread of sorrow and sour grapes as their take home wages cannot take them home.
On the flip side, political office holders especially the Federal legislators are excessively rewarded for their efforts with jumbo salary. The protracted strike by the Academic Staff Union of Universities is an avoidable waste of human capital and unfortunate foistering of a bleak future for the youth.
Parents who have invested in their children, waiting to see them graduate at record time are constantly pushed to eat the bread of sorrow every year. ASUU has been struggling over the years to convince Nigerians that their demands are in the interest of Nigerian students and their parents. They have been agitating for improved wages, enhanced condition of service and good environment for teaching and research.
Unfortunately, Federal Government has been reneging on several memoranda of understanding reached at different times with the egg heads.
The issues of Earned Academic Allowances, improvement of university infrastructure and IPPIS debacle could have been resolved to avoid the current prolonged strike which has lasted for seven months and counting. All the so called Nairametrics have remained unresolved because of lack of political will by government to invest in the educational system.
The UNESCO bench mark of 26% for education in budgetary provision is yet to be addressed in Nigeria. In the current 2020/2021 budget, Nigeria budgeted 5.6 percent for education. Between 2011 and 2015, Nigeria has budgeted between 9.3 percent and 10.7 percent; this was during former President Jonathan administration. In the present dispensation, 7.9 percent and 5.6 percent have been budgeted for the education sector between 2016 to date.
It follows therefore that the negotiations between the Federal Government and ASUU are exercises in futility because no one can give what he doesn’t have.
Can FG do better than it has done on the education budget? The present budget estimate is hanging on a huge deficit as Nigeria is borrowing to fund it. Nigeria is projecting a budget estimate of 11.86 Trillion Naira in 2021 with a humongous deficit of 5.16 Trillion Naira. It means therefore that nearly 50% of the budget will be financed on loan as projected revenue is only 6.98 Trillion Naira.
The ASUU-FG imbroglio remains intractable while students and parents continue to munch the bread of sorrow. The educational system will continue to produce half baked graduates who will increase the unenviable army of unemployables as poverty soars higher in a country that has become the poverty capital of the world. We pray for Nigeria in distress. Lord have mercy. May the recent concessions by FG meet the expectations of ASUU so that the wheel of the educational system will move again and in a sustainable direction.

 

By: Bon Woke

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Column

Renewable Energy Faces Looming Workforce Crisis

Published

3 weeks ago

on

August 18, 2025

By

Despite a discouraging political climate and unprecedented uncertainty in the United States clean energy sector, low costs of wind and solar energy continue to drive growth of the domestic clean energy sector.
However, while market forces continue to support the expansion of renewable energy capacity, the sector faces critical challenges extending beyond the antagonism of the Trump administration.
The continued growth of solar and wind power risks being hampered by several mitigating factors, including (but not limited to) intensifying competition over increasingly scarce suitable land plots, stressed and volatile global supply chains, lengthy and unpredictable development processes, Complex and overlapping permitting processes, and a critical talent gap.
The renewable energy labor shortage has been years in the making, but is no less closer to resolution. The issue spans both white collar and blue collar positions, and threatens to kneecap progress in the booming sector.
Between the years of 2011 and 2030, it is expected that global levels of installed wind and solar capacity will quadruple. Analysis from McKinsey & Company concludes that “this huge surge in new wind and solar installations will be almost impossible to staff with qualified development and construction employees as well as operations and maintenance workers.
“It’s unclear where these employees will come from in the future,” the McKinsey report goes on to say.
He continued that “There are too few people with specialized and relevant expertise and experience, and too many of them are departing for other companies or other industries.”
The solar and wind industries are suffering from a lack of awareness of career paths and opportunities, despite their well-established presence in domestic markets.
Emergent clean energies face an even steeper uphill battle. Geothermal energy, for example, is poised for explosive growth as one of vanishingly few carbon-free energy solutions with broad bipartisan support, but faces a severe talent gap and punishingly low levels of awareness in potential talent pools.
But while the outlook is discouraging, industry insiders argue that it’s too soon to sound the alarms. In fact, a recent report from Utility Drive contends that “solutions to the energy talent gap are hiding in plain sight.”
The article breaks down those solutions into four concrete approaches: building partnerships with educators, formulating Registered Apprenticeship pathways, updating credential requirements to reflect real-world needs, and rethinking stale recruitment strategies.
Targeting strategic alliances with educational institutions is a crucial strategy for creating a skilled workforce, particularly in emerging sectors like geothermal energy.
Businesses can, for example, partner with and sponsor programs at community colleges, creating a pipeline for the next generation of skilled workers. Apprenticeships serve a similar purpose, encouraging hands-on learning outside of the classroom. Such apprenticeships can apply to white collar positions as well as blue collar roles.
“If we can figure out a way to educate the younger generation that you can actually have a career that you can be proud of and help solve a problem the world is facing, but also work in the extractive industry, I think that could go a long way,” said Jeanine Vany, executive vice president of corporate affairs for Canadian geothermal firm Eavor, speaking about the geothermal energy talent gap.
These approaches won’t solve the talent gap overnight – especially as political developments may discourage would-be jobseekers from placing their bets on a career in the renewables sector. But they will go a long way toward mitigating the issue.
“The clean energy transition depends on a workforce that can sustain it,” reports Utility Drive. “To meet the hiring challenges, employers will benefit from looking beyond the next position to fill and working toward a strategic, industry-wide vision for attracting talent.”
By: Haley Zaremba
Continue Reading

Column

Is It End For Lithium’s Reign As Battery King?

Published

1 month ago

on

August 1, 2025

By

Lithium-ion batteries power the world around us. Their prevalence in our daily life is growing steadily, to the extent that lithium-ion batteries now power a whopping 70 percent of all rechargeable devices.
From electric vehicles to smartphones to utility-scale energy storage, lithium-ion batteries are increasingly forming the building blocks of innumerable sectors.
But despite its dominance in battery technologies, there are some serious issues with lithium supply chains that make it a less-than-ideal model upon which to base our world.
Not only is extracting lithium often extremely environmentally damaging, it’s deeply intertwined with geopolitical pressure points. China controls a huge portion of global lithium supply chains, rendering markets highly vulnerable to shocks and the political will of Beijing.
China’s control is particularly strong in the case of electric vehicle batteries, thanks to a decade-long strategy to outcompete the globe.
“For over a decade, China has meticulously orchestrated a strategic ascent in the global electric vehicle (EV) batteries market, culminating in a dominance that now presents a formidable challenge to Western manufacturers,” reports EE Times.
The effect functions as “almost a moat” around Chinese battery production, buffering the sector against international competition.
The multiple downsides and risks associated with lithium and lithium-ion battery sourcing is pushing EV companies to research alternative battery models to power the electric cars of the future.
There are a litany of lithium alternatives in research and development phases, including – but not limited to – lead, nickel-cadmium, nickel-metal hydride, sodium nickel chloride, lithium metal polymer, sodium-ion, lithium-sulfur, and solid state batteries.
Solid state batteries seem to be the biggest industry darling. Solid-state batteries use a solid electrolyte as a barrier and conductor between the cathode and anode.
These batteries don’t necessarily do away with lithium, but they can eliminate the need for graphite – another critical mineral under heavy Chinese control. Plus, solid state batteries are purported to be safer, have higher energy density, and recharge faster than lithium-ion batteries.
While solid-state batteries are still in development, they’re already being tested in some applications by car companies. Mercedes and BMW claim that they are already road-testing vehicles powered by solid-state batteries, but it will likely be years before we see them in any commercial context.
Subaru is on the verge of testing solid-state batteries within its vehicles, but is already employing a smaller form of the technology to power robots within its facilities.
However, while solid-state batteries are being hailed as a sort of holy grail for battery tech, some think that the promise – and progress – of solid-state batteries is overblown.
“I think there’s a lot of noise in solid state around commercial readiness that’s maybe an exaggeration of reality”, Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe said during an interview on this week’s Plugged-In Podcast.
Sodium ion batteries are also a promising contender to overtake lithium-ion batteries in the EV sector. Sodium is 1,000 times more abundant than lithium.
“It’s widely available around the world, meaning it’s cheaper to source, and less water-intensive to extract”, stated James Quinn, the CEO of U.K.-based Faradion. “It takes 682 times more water to extract one tonne of lithium versus one tonne of sodium.That is a significant amount.”
Bloomberg projections indicate that sodium-ion could displace 272,000 tons of lithium demand as soon as 2035.
But even this does not signal the death of lithium. Lithium is simply too useful in battery-making. It’s energy-dense and performs well in cold weather, making it “indispensable for high-performance applications” according to EV World.
“The future isn’t lithium or sodium—it’s both, deployed strategically across sectors…the result is a diversified, resilient battery economy.”
By: Haley Zaremba
Continue Reading

Column

Why Oil Prices Could See Significant Upside Shift

Published

1 month ago

on

July 28, 2025

By

The 9th OPEC International Seminar was held in Vienna recently, wherein participants discussed energy security, investment, climate change, and energy poverty, with a particular emphasis on balancing these competing priorities.
According to commodity analysts at Standard Chartered, the summit, titled “Charting Pathways Together: The Future of Global Energy”, featured significantly greater engagement from international oil companies and consuming country governments, with discussions converging on a more inclusive shared agenda rather than non-intersecting approaches seen in previous years.
However, StanChart reported there was a clear mismatch between what energy producers vs. market analysts think about spare production capacity.
Unlike Wall Street analysts, who frequently talk about spare capacity of 5-6 million barrels per day (mb/d), speakers from several sectors of the industry noted that spare capacity is both limited and very geographically concentrated.
StanChart believes this erroneous assumption about spare capacity has been a big drag on oil prices, and the implications for the whole forward curve of oil prices could be potentially profound once traders realize that roughly two-thirds of the capacity they thought was available on demand does not actually exist.
This makes the analysts bullish about the general shape of their forecast 2026 price trajectory (Figure 32), i.e., a set of significant upward shifts as opposed to the flat trajectory seen in the market curve and in analyst consensus.
In other words, oil prices could have as much as $15/barrel upside from current levels.
StanChart is not the only oil bull here. Goldman Sachs recently hiked its oil price forecast for H2 2025, saying the market is increasingly shifting its focus from recession fears to potential supply disruptions, low spare capacity, lower oil inventories, especially among OECD countries and production constraints by Russia.
GS has increased its Brent forecast by $5/bbl to $66/bbl, and by $6 for WTI crude to $63/bbl, slightly lower than current levels of $68.34/bbl and 66.24/bbl for Brent and WTI crude, respectively.
However, the Wall Street bank has maintained its 2026 price forecast at $56/bbl for Brent and $52 for WTI, due to “an offset between a boost from higher long-dated prices and a hit from a wider 1.7M bbl/day surplus.’’ Previously, GS had forecast a 1.5M bbl/day surplus for the coming year.
Further, Goldman sees a stronger oil price rebound beyond 2026 due to reduced spare capacity.
EU natural gas inventories have climbed at faster-than-average clip in recent times. According to Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE) data, Europe’s gas inventories stood at 73.10 billion cubic metres (bcm) on 13 July, good for a 2.31 bcm w/w increase.
Still, the injection rate is not enough to completely fill the continent’s gas stores, with the current clip on track to take inventories to about 97.9 bcm, or 84.3% of storage capacity, at the end of the injection season.
Europe’s gas demand remains fairly lacklustre despite extremely high temperatures across much of the continent in recent weeks.
According to estimates by StanChart, EU gas demand for the first 14 days of July averaged 583 million cubic meters/day, nearly 3% lower from a year ago but a 10% improvement from the June lows.
However, StanChart is bullish on natural gas prices, saying the market is likely underestimating the likelihood of more Russian gas being taken off the markets.
Back in April, U.S. senators Lindsey Graham (Republican) and Richard Blumenthal (Democrat), introduced “Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025”, with the legislation enjoying broad bipartisan support (85 co-sponsors in the Senate out of 100 senators).
In a joint statement on 14 July, the two senators noted that President Trump’s decision to implement 100% secondary tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas if a peace agreement is not reached within 50 days but pledged that they will continue to work on “bipartisan Russia sanctions legislation that would implement up to 500 percent tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas”.
StanChart has predicted that the Trump administration is unlikely to take actions that risk driving oil prices higher. However, Russian gas remains in the crosshairs, with U.S. LNG likely to see a surge in demand if Russian gas exports are curtailed.
StanChart estimates that the EU’s net imports of Russian pipeline gas averaged 79.8 million cubic metres per day (mcm/d) in the first 14 days of July, with all non-transit flows into the EU coming into Bulgaria through the Turkstream pipeline, with Hungary and Slovakia also receiving Turkstream gas.
There was also a flow of about 65 mcm/d of Russian LNG in the first half of July, with Russia providing 18.6% of the EU’s net imports. StanChart has predicted that we could see a strong rally in natural gas prices if Washington slaps Moscow with fresh gas sanctions.
By: Alex Kimani
Continue Reading

Trending