Connect with us

Energy

Efficiency should always be the first answer

Published

on

Authors: Kevin Lane and Armin Mayer*

While the world is becoming more energy efficient, strong global growth is offsetting those gains. As a result, we are consuming more energy and emitting more carbon dioxide.

But greater action on energy efficiency can reverse this trend. The International Energy Agency’s most recent market report on efficiency shows how deploying all cost-effective efficiency measures, relying only on available technologies, would allow the global economy to double by 2040 with only a marginal increase in energy demand. This Efficient World Scenario offers a blueprint for a world where energy efficiency measures keep a lid on energy demand growth and carbon emissions while economies expand.

But would greater efficiency actually prompt more energy use? If consumers have access to more efficient air conditioners or cars, for example, will they simply use them more, increasing overall energy consumption? Or if households save on energy at home, will they spend the income elsewhere, on services that rely on energy? This theory is most commonly referred to as the “rebound effect,” and some economists have suggested that efficiency improvements can lead to greater energy consumption.

A recent article in The Economist cited recent work by researchers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology who have developed a general equilibrium model to predict the economy-wide impact of more energy efficient technologies. The model suggests that the rebound effect essentially negated all the efficiency gains obtained in the United States during the second half of the last Century, according to the article.

In reality, energy efficiency has been critical in decoupling economic growth from rising energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, energy consumption and GDP rose at almost an identical rate between 1949 and 1975. Following the oil crisis of the early 1970s and the implementation of vehicle fuel economy standards and many other efficiency measures, the US economy underwent a fundamental shift: Between 1976 and 2009, GDP nearly tripled, while energy consumption increased by less than 25%.

Japan has had similar successes with efficiency measures, achieving a 2.6 fold increase in real GDP while final energy consumption remained relatively constant. Denmark provides a further example of how efficiency measures can deliver meaningful economic outcomes. The 1973 Oil Crisis had a severe impact on the Nordic country, which was heavily reliant on fossil fuel imports to meet its energy needs. As a result of comprehensive efficiency measures (combined with world-leading promotion of renewable energies) implemented in the mid-1970s, Denmark reduced its energy intensity by over 50% and GHG emissions by 30% while more than doubling GDP growth by 2015.

All this is not to say that the rebound effect does not exist. In some sectors, like transport or home heating and cooling, a direct rebound has been measured in some studies. Mitigating such rebound effects is possible through measures such as: introducing road pricing to curb rebound within transport and by introducing green energy levies or taxes to raise energy prices lowered as a result of efficiency. This is required to maximise expected energy savings from efficiency measures.  However, some rebound may actually be intentional and even desirable, especially where demands for essential services – such as heating and cooling – are lacking. In developed economies, access to energy may not be an issue, but access to affordable energy is a major concern for many low-income households. In such cases, policy makers must consider whether expanding energy services constitutes a rebound effort, or rather a desired social outcome, such as families being able to afford warm and comfortable homes.

In emerging economies, the provision of more energy services is a fundamental part of economic growth and social development. Energy efficiency can help ensure that any increase in the availability of energy services brings real benefits rather than creating additional problems, such as increased air pollution.

In India, for example, the Ujala initiative has distributed 330 million energy-efficient LED lamps since 2015. In addition to providing an important energy service for millions of low income households, the initiative freed up enough energy to power at least 1 million additional households. A similar initiative, though on a smaller scale, led by the Energy Commission in Ghana was able to increase energy access by over 7% in a single year through the deployment of efficient refrigeration and lighting technologies.

In such cases, energy efficiency contributed to social and economic development, rather than simply a reduction in energy use. Some might consider this a rebound effect; alternatively, these examples illustrate how energy efficiency can ensure that more people benefit from essential energy services in an equitable way.

Ultimately, developed and emerging economies will continue to strive for economic growth and increased use of quality energy services. Precisely for this reason, energy efficiency will be absolutely indispensable for ensuring that these objectives are met while increases in global energy consumption are kept to a minimum.

*Armin Mayer, IEA energy analyst.

IEA

Continue Reading
Comments

Energy

Driving a Smarter Future

MD Staff

Published

on

Today the average car runs on fossil fuels, but growing pressure for climate action, falling battery costs, and concerns about air pollution in cities, has given life to the once “over-priced” and neglected electric vehicle.

With many new electric vehicles (EV) now out-performing their fossil-powered counterparts’ capabilities on the road, energy planners are looking to bring innovation to the garage — 95% of a car’s time is spent parked. The result is that with careful planning and the right infrastructure in place, parked and plugged-in EVs could be the battery banks of the future, stabilising electric grids powered by wind and solar energy.

Today the average car runs on fossil fuels, but growing pressure for climate action, falling battery costs, and concerns about air pollution in cities, has given life to the once “over-priced” and neglected electric vehicle.

With many new electric vehicles (EV) now out-performing their fossil-powered counterparts’ capabilities on the road, energy planners are looking to bring innovation to the garage — 95% of a car’s time is spent parked. The result is that with careful planning and the right infrastructure in place, parked and plugged-in EVs could be the battery banks of the future, stabilising electric grids powered by wind and solar energy.

Advanced forms of smart charging

An advanced smart charging approach, called Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G), allows EVs not to just withdraw electricity from the grid, but to also inject electricity back to the grid. V2G technology may create a business case for car owners, via aggregators (PDF), to provide ancillary services to the grid. However, to be attractive for car owners, smart charging must satisfy the mobility needs, meaning cars should be charged when needed, at the lowest cost, and owners should possibly be remunerated for providing services to the grid. Policy instruments, such as rebates for the installation of smart charging points as well as time-of-use tariffs (PDF), may incentivise a wide deployment of smart charging.

“We’ve seen this tested in the UK, Netherlands and Denmark,” Boshell says. “For example, since 2016, Nissan, Enel and Nuvve have partnered and worked on an energy management solution that allows vehicle owners and energy users to operate as individual energy hubs. Their two pilot projects in Denmark and the UK have allowed owners of Nissan EVs to earn money by sending power to the grid through Enel’s bidirectional chargers.”

Perfect solution?

While EVs have a lot to offer towards accelerating variable renewable energy deployment, their uptake also brings technical challenges that need to be overcome.

IRENA analysis suggests uncontrolled and simultaneous charging of EVs could significantly increase congestion in power systems and peak load. Resulting in limitations to increase the share of solar PV and wind in power systems, and the need for additional investment costs in electrical infrastructure in form of replacing and additional cables, transformers, switchgears, etc., respectively.

An increase in autonomous and ‘mobility-as-a-service’ driving — i.e. innovations for car-sharing or those that would allow your car to taxi strangers when you are not using it — could disrupt the potential availability of grid-stabilising plugged-in EVs, as batteries will be connected and available to the grid less often.

Impact of charging according to type

It has also become clear that fast and ultra-fast charging are a priority for the mobility sector, however, slow charging is actually better suited for smart charging, as batteries are connected and available to the grid longer. For slow charging, locating charging infrastructure at home and at the workplace is critical, an aspect to be considered during infrastructure planning. Fast and ultra-fast charging may increase the peak demand stress on local grids. Solutions such as battery swapping, charging stations with buffer storage, and night EV fleet charging, might become necessary, in combination with fast and ultra-fast charging, to avoid high infrastructure investments.

To learn more about smart charging, read IRENA’s Innovation Outlook: smart charging for electric vehicles. The report explores the degree of complementarity potential between variable renewable energy sources and EVs, and considers how this potential could be tapped through smart charging between now and mid-century, and the possible impact of the expected mobility disruptions in the coming two to three decades.

IRENA

Continue Reading

Energy

What may cause Oil prices to fall?

Osama Rizvi

Published

on

Oil prices have rallied a whopping 30 percent this year. Among other factors, OPEC’s commitment to reduce output, geopolitical flash-points like the brewing war in Libya, slowdown in shale production and optimism in U.S. and China trade war have all added to the increase. The recent rally being sparked by cancellation of waivers granted to countries importing oil form Iran has taken prices to new highs.

However, one might question the sustainability of this rally by pointing out few bearish factors that might cause a correction, or possibly, a fall in oil prices. The recent sharp slide shows the presence of tail-risks!

Libya produces just over 1 percent of world oil output at 1.1 million barrels, which is indeed not of such a magnitude as to dramatically affect global oil supplies. What is important is the market reaction to every geopolitical event that occurs in the Middle East given the intricate alliances and therefore the increasing chances of other countries jumping in with a national event climaxing into a regional affair.

Matters in Libya got serious as an airstrike was carried out on the only functioning airport in the country a few days ago. Khalifa Haftar who heads Libyan National Army has assumed responsibility for the strike. However, UN and G7 have urged to restore peace in Tripoli. Russia has categorically said to use “all available means” while U.S.’ Pompeo called for “an immediate halt” of atrocities in Libya.

The fighting has been far from locations that hold oil but the overall sentiment is that of fear which is understandable as this happens in parallel to a steep decline in Venezuelan production, touching multi-year low of 740,000 bpd.  However, as international forces play their part we might expect a de-escalation in the Libyan war — as it has happened before.

Besides the chances of an alleviation of hostilities in Libya, concerns pertaining to global economic growth, and thereof demand for oil, have still not disappeared. The U.S. treasury yield, one of the best measures to predict a future slowdown (recession),  inverted last month; first time since 2007. If this does not raise doubts over the global economic health then the very recent announcement by International Monetary Fund (IMF) who has slashed its outlook for world economic growth to its lowest since the last financial crisis. According to the Fund the global economy will grow 3.3 percent this year down from 3.5 percent that predicted three months ago.

image: Bloomberg

Then there is Trump, whose declaration of Iran’s IRGC as a terrorist organization might increase the likelihoods of yet another spate of heated rhetoric between the arch-rivals. But if he is genuinely irked by higher oil prices as his tweets at times show and if he thinks that higher gasoline prices can hurt his political capital then this will certainly have a bearish effect on the markets as observers take a sigh regarding the mounting, yet unsubstantiated,  concern over supply.

One of the factors that contributed most to the recent rally was OPEC’s unwavering commitment to its production cuts. The organization’s output fell to its lowest in a year at 30.23 million barrels per day in February 2019, its lowest in four years. But the question remains for how long can these cuts go on? Last month it was reported the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had admitted that they need oil at $70 for a balanced budget while estimates from IMF claims that the level for a budget break-even are even higher: $80-$85. We should not forget Trump and his tweets in this regard as well. Whenever prices have inched up from a certain threshold POTUS’ tweet forced the market to correct themselves (save the last time). One of the key Russian officials who made the deal with OPEC possible recently signaled that Russia may urge others to increase production as they meet in the last week of June this year. While this is not a confirmation that others will agree but it certainly shows that one of the three largest oil producers in the world does feel that markets are now almost balanced and the cuts are not needed further.

Now with the recent cancellation of waivers we should expect U.S. to press KSA to increase production to offset the lost barrels and stabilize the prices.

Finally stoking fears of an impending supply crunch (a bullish factor) is the supposed slowdown in U.S. Shale production. But the facts might be a tad different. Few weeks ago U.S. added 15 oil rigs in one day, a very strong number indeed-this comes after a decline of streak of six consecutive weeks. According to different estimates the shale producers are fine with prices anywhere between $48 to $54 and the recent rise in prices has certainly helped. Well Fargo Investment Institute Laforge said that higher prices will result in “extra U.S. oil production in coming months”. Albeit, U.S.’ average daily production has decreased a bit but it doesn’t mean that the shale producers cannot bring back production online again. Prices are very conducive for it.

So if you think that prices will continue to head higher, think again. Following graph shows that oil had entered the overbought territory few days back–hence the recent slide.

Therefore, If the war in Libya settles down (and there is a strong possibility that it will); rumors of a production increase making its way into investors’ and traders’ mind (as it already have) and global economy continue to struggle in order to gain a strong footing — the chances are oil will fall again. The current rally might last for some-time but, like always, beware not to buy too high.

Continue Reading

Energy

No One Understands the Weaponization of Energy better than Russia and Iran

Todd Royal

Published

on

One of the most important lessons from World War II (WWII) is this: integrated economic growth is always better than a global war that engulfed all seven continents and killed over 100 million people. Since oil, natural gas and coal is now intertwined with geopolitics, international relations, foreign policy, realist balancing that pits nation against nation, and macroeconomic monetary policy; energy and electricity are now coupled with national security.  Russia and Iran use fossil fuel, nuclear power plants and renewable energy as weapons – hence the term – the weaponization of energy.

Confronting both countries using alliances like NATO to hem Russia and Iran into their respective regions of influence while also using soft power to coax them into using their energy resources in a positive direction is where the world is now and into the future. What’s disconcerting about the weaponization of energy is how Russia and Iran use energy as a foreign policy and national security weapon. The same way a nuclear arsenal is exploited to deter enemies and project national power and pride.

The largest problem with Russia are both state-run and influenced energy firms – Rosneft and Gazprom – seemingly are beyond balancing, containing or deterring since they are incredibly profitable. Alexei Bolshakov, general director of Citigroup Global Markets stated in late November 2018:

“They [Russian oil and gas companies] are having an absolutely fabulous year (2018 into 2019). They earn more per barrel than they did even during $100 barrel oil prices.”

Another Russian senior analyst echoed the same sentiments: “Russian oil and gas companies are flooded with cash, they don’t know what to do with it.”This allows Vladimir Putin the ability to engage in geopolitical adventures in Syria, Ukraine, Crimea, the United States, Europe, the Arctic Circle and his own country. Oil and natural gas profits from each firm is a never-ending source of money and financial power that translate into hard, military resources used for projecting Russian power. It’s like the Cold War never ended.

To the Obama administration’s credit they attempted exhaustive diplomacy with Iran, but it failed. The counter to diplomacy and a helping hand in energy and nuclear weaponry is that under former President Obama:

“Iran was closer than ever to nuclear weapons, received hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief, and had billions in cash flown over to them in jets (illegally).”

Whichever perspective is correct, and history will be the judge, nothing was deterred from the Iranian or Middle East’s perspective. Iran and there use of energy for their military, paramilitary organizations and Hezbollah is more powerful than ever before. Iran is now entrenched in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon and has created an arc of influence from their homeland over multiple countries to the Mediterranean Sea. It can be argued the Iranian regime is in the best position to counter the US-led global order and can use energy with Islamic terrorism to remake the liberal world order in place for over seventy years.

While western countries and environmentalists such as Al Gore, well-known Hollywood actors, and overly environmental sensitive political parties (the Greens in Germany or the US Democratic Party)tout their green virtue, Iran on the other hand is going against the US-negotiated Iran nuclear agreement and is building two new nuclear plants There isn’t a solid reason behind building nuclear power plants when Iran is blessed with one of the largest supplies of natural gas, oil, and petroleum plays in the world. Iran is moving forward with nuclear plants under the guise of energy to electricity, because they are still trying to build or acquire nuclear weapons to use against Israel, the EU, the US, and Sunni Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

Iran building two new nuclear reactors has elicited outrage in Washington and the Trump administration. This a major cause – the Iran problem – why Trump has allowed and encouraged US oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) firms to “drill baby drill” without pause. According to Rystad Energy, they believe:

“The United States will surpass Saudi Arabia later this year (2019) in exports of oil, natural gas liquids and petroleum products like gasoline.”

This exploding E&P has caused a complete overhaul in rising US natural gas consumption and the all-time highs keep breaking records. The only thing stopping the US from drilling and using oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear as natural security buffers against Russia and Iran are legislative fiats coming from federal benches that have zero basis in judicial accountability. But the world has to begin “getting real about Iran,” its murderous intentions, brutality against women, gays, Christians and anyone not fully supporting the revolutionary Iranian regime and government.

Since Iran is a leading member of OPEC, and has massive reserves of oil and natural gas, Iran like Russia uses their deep earth minerals and energy deposits as weapons the way NATO uses their military divisions to deter Russia. Energy is the soft economic power weapon of choice for Russia and Iran. Unless each is confronted, deterred, destroyed or regime change occurs these problems will only fester and grow worse. Then the continued weaponization of energy will become a regional, international or global war with oil, petroleum, aviation fuel, nuclear energy and natural gas being at the forefront of who wins and who loses once shots are fired and bombs are dropped.

Continue Reading

Latest

Newsdesk9 mins ago

European Union and World Bank Support to Help Enhance Georgia’s Innovation Ecosystem

The European Union (EU) and the World Bank launched today the Increasing Institutional Capacity for Innovation (IICI) project, at an...

Science & Technology2 hours ago

Business in Need of Cyber Rules

For more than 20 years, countries have been struggling to introduce a set of rules of conduct and liability requirements...

Intelligence4 hours ago

Suppressed OPCW Finding: War-Crime Likely Perpetrated by U.S. Against Syria on 14 April 2018

On May 13th, Tim Hayward of the Working Group on Syria made public on his website an utterly damning document...

Newsdesk6 hours ago

World Bank Group Releases Little Data Book on Gender

The World Bank Group today released the Little Data Book on Gender 2019 to provide an easily accessible entry point...

Middle East8 hours ago

Chinese purchases of Iranian oil raise tantalizing questions

A fully loaded Chinese oil tanker ploughing its way eastwards from two Iranian oil terminals raises questions of how far...

Africa10 hours ago

Governance reform could see African economies benefit to tune of £23bn

The latest edition of PwC’s bimonthly Global Economy Watch has found that African economies could receive a windfall of £23bn...

Hotels & Resorts12 hours ago

Marriott International Debuts JW Marriott Hotel in Qufu, Birthplace of Confucius

JW Marriott announced the opening of the new JW Marriott Hotel Qufu in Shandong province, China. Owned by Shandong Luneng,...

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy