Posts Tagged ‘energy’

Kyoto protocol’s impact on the world energy scene

Samedi, mai 26th, 2012

Ratified in 1997, the Kyoto protocol is an international environmental treaty conducted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It applied a principle of “common differentiated responsibilities” and recognized the responsibility of industrialized countries in current levels of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. It aimed at reducing six of the main greenhouse gases (Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride), to stabilize« greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system » . But, what were the impacts of the Kyoto protocol on the world energy scene have been, more than a decade after its ratification ?

2007, Shawinigan, Québec, Canada @Flickr

Changing the way we see energy

First of all, it established a mechanism of trading emission reduction credits, creating an international quota market,(the international market of emission rights), on which signatory countries can exchange their quotas. Countries received quotas of GHG emissions, according to their target to reduce. This carbon trading and other Kyoto mechanisms influenced the energy market because it changed the way we perceive energy (in its form, its use and the way we use it).

« Governance by carbon »

Second of all, the first ten years of the Kyoto Protocol have seen many countries introduce environmental policies to fight against climate change and which form a new form of “governance by carbon” . As a consequence, the energy scene saw the emergence of cleaner energies. For instance, natural gas and LNG had and still have a growing importance, favored by environmental considerations, and also thanks to the liberalisation of electricity markets (which drove to regulation, restructuring, privatization and competition to organize the gas market ). Moreover, renewables increased and represent 16% of global final energy consumption comes from renewable energies.

Jonah Natural Gas Field, upper Green River valley, Wyoming, 2003. Source : Flickr/SkyTruth

Nuclear power

In addition, nuclear energy plays an important part. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), concluded that, based on a number of country case studies, nuclear power plants would lead to “long-term certifiable GHG reductions relative to fossil fuel projects”. In its latest publication “Energy Policy for Europe” published in January 2007, the European Commission stressed that nuclear power production must be considered as an option to reduce CO2 emissions and to meet the targets of the Kyoto protocol. The IEA’s figures show that nuclear grew a lot over the past 40 years, from 0,9% of total primary energy in 1973, to 5,8% in 2009.

nuclear plant, Source : Flickr / Arno Volkers

Global dependence on oil

But we can also mention that there is still a global dependence on fossil energies, which are great emitters of GHG. For instance, the use of coal (the most polluting source of energy) increased from 24,6% of total primary energy supply in 1973, to 27,6% in 2009 . It is due to its cheap cost. In addition, oil still have the highest share in total primary energy supply : 32% in 2009. It shows the Kyoto protocol didn’t change he global energy mix in favour of clean or renewable energies, since fossil energies still are predominant. Moreover, the USA didn’t ratify Kyoto Protocol and was at the time the biggest polluter (now replaced by China).

Oil refinery in North Pole Alaska. Source : Flickr/Erica Joy

International discussions

On an international scale, it allowed a global discussion and agreement on reducing CO2 emissions and global warming. This was an historic agreement and it is now difficult to sign another (Cop15 in Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban failures). As the protocol was ratified, the IEA started discussing the issue of energetic security with other actors and countries, but on a technical scale, it didn’t compensate the obstacle to the global discussion which is countries don’t trust each other and still are in relations of confrontation .

COP15 UNFCCC Climate Change - Opening Ceremony. Source : Flickr/UN climate change

As a conclusion we can say that the Kyoto Protocol was the first binding international treaty and in this sense was a big step towards the fight against global warming. It allowed a global discussion and agreement on CO2 emissions cuts and permitted to implement environmental measures that changed a little bit the global energy mix. But as shown by the IAE’s figures, fossil energies still have a great importance in the global energy mix and dependence on fossil fuels is not likely to change on the mid-term view. Moreover, there is still no continuation after the end of the agreement in 2012. The Kyoto Protocol ratification had a limited impact on the global energy scene and energy markets as it changed a minima the global energy mix.

Raul Shimabuku

Japan : the price to close all nuclear plants

Vendredi, mars 23rd, 2012

The Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, a 3-unit BWR site typical of Japan's nuclear plants.

In Japan, there are 53 nuclear plants and its energetic consumption is based on 12% on nuclear plants , 53% on oil, and 13% on natural gas. But, because of the Fukushima nuclear accident and others that happened before (1999, Accident at the Tokai Mura fuel facility), people rise the possibility to close all nuclear plants. Public opinion is in favour of such view since « between 41 and 54 percent of Japanese support scrapping, or reducing the numbers of, nuclear power plants » . But to close all its facilities, Japan will have to pay a very high price.

Increasing public investment

First of all, in terms of public investment, it will cost a lot of money to close all Japanese nuclear plants and switch to other energies since nuclear energy has been a national strategic priority (what we call New Policy) since 1973 and accounts for almost 30% of the Japan’s total electricity production. According to the International Energy Agency, in the New Policies Scenario, Japan’s spending on imports of gas will “double to $66 billion between 2009 and 2035”, but would reach “$80 billion in the Low Nuclear Case”. In addition, we can mention the fact Japan was severly hit by the economic crisis and can’t put so much money on the table, at least in the current context.

A threat to Japan’s energy security

Second of all, Japan will lose the little energy independence that he has acquired over the past decades. Indeed, Japan have almost no indigenous hydro-carbon resources. Including nuclear power, Japan’s energy self-efficiency represents 16%, and this figure falls to 4% if we exclude nuclear power . According to the IEA, it intensifies concerns about Japan’s energy security .

Importing more fossil energies

Moreover, closing all its nuclear plants means importing other energies, which will be more costly than in any other country. Because, unlike countries in Europe or in North/South America, Japan has no cross-border oil and gas pipelines nor power-transmission lines, and importing other energies have an additional cost. A little historical fact can underline the price Japan will have to pay since its economic recovery after the oil shocks of 1970s is due its successful energy policies and attempt to become more and more energy-independent. According to the International Energy Agency, it is a concern since “spending on oil imports is near record highs” .

Environmental cost

Another cost will be the environmental cost. In september 2009, former Prime Minister Hatoyama committed to a 25% reduction of GHG emissions by 2020, at the UN Climate Change Summit. According to the IEA in the Low Nuclear Case, Japan’s CO2 emissions are “50 Mt higher in 2035 than in the New Policies Scenario”.

As a conclusion, the low nuclear scenario will negatively impact Japan in terms of economic cost, energy security and increase of CO2 emissions, and rises important concerns.

Raul Shimabuku

Transportation : Why electricity won’t replace oil

Mardi, mars 13th, 2012

Nissan Leaf recharching in Amsterdam, the Netherlands

In 2050, the world will count about 9 billion inhabitants. The potential for increased vehicle ownership in emerging markets, in particular China and India, is huge (accounting for 50% of the projected growth). But as the transport sector depends more than 98% on oil , and it produces large emissions of CO2 which accelerate global warming, which let us wonder : Will electricity replace oil in transportation ? My answer would be : I don’t think so.

Electric vehicles : a costly alternative

First of all, oil has a technical advantage over electricity : it can easily be built, is cheaper, whereas electricity would require more investment carrying more risk. In addition, it requires less technological developments. Indeed, to use electricity in the transportation, it requires to develop infrastructures to charge the vehicles, and it is costly.

Furthermore, the switch from oil to electricity will be costly and will take years to be achieved. Indeed, according to a report made by the General Commission for Sustainable Development, « the cost of the battery remains a major challenge in the short to medium term competitiveness of the electric vehicle » since it is still very expensive. People will prefer buying a car working with oil rather than an electric vehicle since the price will be less expensive and cars working with oil exist since 1901.

the problem of short battery autonomy

Moreover, there is another drawback since all-electric vehicle (that runs only from a rechargeable battery), have a short autonomy : from 100 to 150 kilometers . We are far from achieving the construction of electric vehicles with ultra-high efficiency battery. At the moment, all electric vehicles are not competitive on the market and will require public support. This is why oil will still be predominant concerning the transportation sector.

Cost-benefit calculation

Finally, we can mention the fact oil is a sector supported by a powerful lobby that ensure its interests. And as the date of the oil peak is still under debate, the cost-benefit calculation shows transportation working thanks to oil is more interesting in terms of economic costs. So, in the next decades to come, electricity won’t replace oil in transportation, at least not with the current context.

Raul Shimabuku