2°C and SDGs: united they stand, divided they fall?

C. von Stechow, J. C. Minx, K. Riahi, J. Jewell, D. L. McCollum, M. W. Callaghan, C. Bertram, G. Luderer & G. Baiocchi. (2016). 2°C and SDGs: united they stand, divided they fall? Environmental Research Letters, 11 (3), 034022. Open Access. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/034022.

The adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the new international climate treaty could put 2015 into the history books as a defining year for setting human development on a more sustainable pathway. The global climate policy and SDG agendas are highly interconnected: the way that the climate problem is addressed strongly affects the prospects of meeting numerous other SDGs and vice versa. Drawing on existing scenario results from a recent energy-economy-climate model inter-comparison project, this letter analyses these synergies and (risk) trade-offs of alternative 2 °C pathways across indicators relevant for energy-related SDGs and sustainable energy objectives. We find that limiting the availability of key mitigation technologies yields some co-benefits and decreases risks specific to these technologies but greatly increases many others. Fewer synergies and substantial trade-offs across SDGs are locked into the system for weak short-term climate policies that are broadly in line with current Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), particularly when combined with constraints on technologies. Lowering energy demand growth is key to managing these trade-offs and creating synergies across multiple energy-related SD dimensions. We argue that SD considerations are central for choosing socially acceptable 2 °C pathways: the prospects of meeting other SDGs need not dwindle and can even be enhanced for some goals if appropriate climate policy choices are made. Progress on the climate policy and SDG agendas should therefore be tracked within a unified framework.

Introducing nuclear power in Turkey: a historic state strategy and future prospects

J. Jewell, & S. A. Ates. (2015). Introducing nuclear power in Turkey: a historic state strategy and future prospects. Energy Research & Social Science, 10, 273–282. Gated. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.07.011.

Turkey is currently in the middle of its sixth attempt over the last 60 years to introduce nuclear power. This paper analyzes Turkey’s past and present motivation, capacity and strategies to identify the factors which influence deployment of nuclear power and draw lessons for other nuclear newcomer countries. While existing literature points to a correlation between nuclear power, strong state involvement, centralized energy planning and the rhetoric linking energy to national prestige and security, we show that these factors are not sufficient for a successful nuclear program. We also show that autocratic rule and nuclear weapons aspirations can undermine rather than support the development of civilian nuclear power as it is often presumed in the literature. Turkey’s current strategy based on intergovernmental agreements with Russia and Japan is laced with irony since it is motivated by energy security considerations and yet relies on foreign entities for construction, ownership and operation of nuclear power plants as well as the development of human capacity. Although Ankara intends to build the third nuclear power plant with own resources this seems unlikely based on the South Korean and Japanese experience, both of which needed much more time and effort to localize the industry.

Post-2020 climate agreements in the major economies assessed in the light of global models

M. Tavoni, E. Kriegler, K. Riahi, D. P. van Vuuren, T. Aboumahboub, A. Bowen, K. Calvin, E. Campiglio, T. Kober, J. Jewell, G. Luderer, G. Marangoni, D. McCollum, M. van Sluisveld, A. Zimmer & B. van der Zwaan. (2014). Post-2020 climate agreements in the major economies assessed in the light of global models. Nature Climate Change, 5 (2), 119-126. Open Access. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2475.

Integrated assessment models can help in quantifying the implications of international climate agreements and regional climate action. This paper reviews scenario results from model intercomparison projects to explore different possible outcomes of post-2020 climate negotiations, recently announced pledges and their relation to the 2 °C target. We provide key information for all the major economies, such as the year of emission peaking, regional carbon budgets and emissions allowances. We highlight the distributional consequences of climate policies, and discuss the role of carbon markets for financing clean energy investments, and achieving efficiency and equity.

The concept of energy security: beyond the 4 A’s

A. Cherp, & J. Jewell. (2014). The concept of energy security: beyond the four A’s. Energy Policy, 75, 415-421. Open Access. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.09.005.

Energy security studies have expanded from their classic beginnings following the 1970s oil crises to encompass various energy sectors and increasingly diverse issues. This viewpoint contributes to the re-examination of the meaning of energy security that has accompanied this expansion. Our starting point is that energy security is an instance of security in general and thus any concept of it should address three questions: “Security for whom?”, “Security for which values?” and “Security from what threats?” We examine an influential approach - the ‘four As of energy security’ (availability, accessibility, affordability, and acceptability) and related literature of energy security - to show it does not address these questions. We subsequently summarize recent insights which propose a different concept of energy security as ‘low vulnerability of vital energy systems’. This approach opens the road for detailed exploration of vulnerabilities as a combination of exposure to risks and resilience and of the links between vital energy systems and critical social functions. The examination of energy security framed by this concept involves several scientific disciplines and provides a useful platform for scholarly analysis and policy learning.

Securitization of energy supply chains in China

G. C. Leung, A. Cherp, J. Jewell & Y.-M. Wei. (2014). Securitization of energy supply chains in China. Applied Energy, 123, 316-326. Gated. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.12.016.

Three sources of energy security risks, namely sovereignty, robustness and resilience, affect China’s energy chains. Energy security issues in China both have shaped and at the same time were shaped by ideas and institutions. China remains rigid with equating ‘security’ with ‘national security’ and the notion of “national” is socially constructed. Powerful actors, such as Chinese NOCs, inclined to interpret the problem so that it fits their preferred solution. Securitization of any energy supply chains results from their historical roots, system properties and institutional agents.

Energy and security

A. Cherp, A. Adenikinju, F. Hernandez, A. Goldthau, L. Hughes, J. Jewell, J. C. Jansen, M. Olshanskaya, R. S. de Oliveira, B. K. Sovacool & S. Vakulenko. (2012). Energy and security (T. B. Johansson, N. Nakicenovic, & A. Patwardan, Eds.). Global Energy Assessment: Toward a Sustainable Future. 325-384. Cambridge University Press. Preprint.

Energy security under de-carbonization scenarios: an assessment framework and evaluation under different technology and policy choices

J. Jewell, A. Cherp & K. Riahi. (2014). Energy security under de-carbonization scenarios: an assessment framework and evaluation under different technology and policy choices. Energy Policy, 65, 743-760. Gated. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.051.

How would a low-carbon energy transformation affect energy security? This paper proposes a framework to evaluate energy security under long-term energy scenarios generated by integrated assessment models. Energy security is defined as low vulnerability of vital energy systems, delineated along geographic and sectoral boundaries. The proposed framework considers vulnerability as a combination of risks associated with inter-regional energy trade and resilience reflected in energy intensity and diversity of energy sources and technologies. We apply this framework to 43 scenarios generated by the MESSAGE model as part of the Global Energy Assessment, including one baseline scenario and 42 “low-carbon” scenarios where the global mean temperature increase is limited to 2°C over the pre-industrial level. By and large, low-carbon scenarios are associated with lower energy trade and higher diversity of energy options, especially in the transport sector. A few risks do emerge under low-carbon scenarios in the latter half of the century. They include potentially high trade in natural gas and hydrogen and low diversity of electricity sources. Trade is typically lower in scenarios which emphasize demand-side policies as well as non-tradable energy sources (nuclear and renewables) while diversity is higher in scenarios which limit the penetration of intermittent renewables.

Energy security assessment framework and three case-studies

A. Cherp & J. Jewell. (2013). Energy security assessment framework and three case-studies (H. Dyer & M. J. Trombetta, Eds.). International Handbook of Energy Security. Chapter 8, 146-173, Edward Elgar Publishing. Gated. Preprint.

Energy security and climate change mitigation: interaction in long-term global scenarios

J. Jewell. (2013). Energy security and climate change mitigation: interaction in long-term global scenarios. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University, Budapest.

The connection between climate mitigation and energy security is crucial for linking the global problem of climate change to national energy interests but is far from trivial. While energy security is an immediate concern of ensuring general stability of energy systems, climate change mitigation is a long-term issue requiring massive transformations. Moreover, while energy security emerged as a policy problem which only recently drew scholarly attention, climate change emerged as a scientific curiosity and only recently entered the policy arena. These different realities result in a gap between energy security and climate change research.

This thesis contributes to bridging this gap by analyzing energy security in 70 global scenarios from six integrated assessment models. I develop an energy security assessment framework which is generic enough to be relevant under radically different energy systems yet rooted in historic energy security concerns. The framework introduces the concept of vital energy systems and three perspectives on energy security: sovereignty, robustness and resilience. I use 31 indicators to test the effect of different climate policies on energy security under different assumptions of economic growth, fossil fuel availability and technological choices.

I find that stabilizing the greenhouse gas concentration at 450 ppm CO2 -eq. leads to a reduction in global energy trade by 20%–70% by 2050 and 50%–85% by 2100 compared to the baseline. Oil extraction drops from a maximum of 100% of proven reserves and resources in the baseline to 50% under climate policies. Fossil resource availability and GDP growth affect energy trade in the baseline but not in climate stabilization scenarios.

Climate policies lead to an increase in diversity of energy options in electricity generation and transportation. There are certain qualifications to these energy security gains depending on technological choices and time horizons analyzed. Climate policies lead to lower imports and higher energy diversity in the E.U., China and India. However, for the U.S. and traditional energy exporters, climate stabilization would likely cause a loss of energy exports which could significantly affect the geopolitics of climate negotiations.

Energy security of China, India, the EU and the US under long-term scenarios: results from six IAMs

J. Jewell, A. Cherp, V. Vinichenko, N. Bauer, T. Kober, D. McCollum, D.P. van Vuuren, B. van der Zwaan. (2013). Energy security of China, India, the EU and the US under long-term scenarios: results from six IAMs. Climate Change Economics, 4(4), 1340011. Gated. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1142/s2010007813400113.

This paper assesses energy security in three long-term energy scenarios (business as usual development, a projection of Copenhagen commitments, and a 450 ppm stabilization scenario) as modeled in six integrated assessment models: GCAM, IMAGE, MESSAGE, ReMIND, TIAM-ECN and WITCH. We systematically evaluate long-term vulnerabilities of vital energy systems of four major economies: China, the European Union (E.U.), India and the U.S., as expressed by several characteristics of energy trade, resource extraction, and diversity of energy options. Our results show that climate policies are likely to lead to significantly lower global energy trade and reduce energy imports of major economies, decrease the rate of resource depletion, and increase the diversity of energy options. China, India and the E.U. would derive particularly strong benefits from climate policies, whereas the U.S. may forego some opportunities to export fossil fuels in the second half of the century.

Energy pathways for sustainable development

K. Riahi, F. Dentener, D. Gielen, D. Gielen, A. Grubler, J. Jewell, Z. Klimont, V. Krey, D. L. McCollum, S. Pachauri, S. Rao, B. van Ruijven, D. P. van Vuuren & C. Wilson. (2012). Energy Pathways for Sustainable Development. Global Energy Assessment: Toward a Sustainable Future, 1205-1306. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Access. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511793677.023.

Chapter 17 explores possible transformational pathways of the future global energy system with the overarching aim of assessing the technological feasibility as well as the economic implications of meeting a range of sustainability objectives simultaneously. As such, it aims at the integration across objectives, and thus goes beyond earlier assessments of the future energy system that have mostly focused on either specific topics or single objectives. Specifically, the chapter assesses technical measures, policies, and related costs and benefits for meeting the objectives that were identified in Chapters 2 to 6, including:

• providing almost universal access to affordable clean cooking and electricity for the poor;

• limiting air pollution and health damages from energy use;

• improving energy security throughout the world; and

• limiting climate change.

The assessment of future energy pathways in this chapter shows that it is technically possible to achieve improved energy access, air quality, and energy security simultaneously while avoiding dangerous climate change. In fact, a number of alternative combinations of resources, technologies, and policies are found capable of attaining these objectives. From a large ensemble of possible transformations, three distinct groups of pathways (GEA-Supply, GEA-Mix, and GEA-Efficiency) have been identified and analyzed. Within each group, one pathway has been selected as “illustrative” in order to represent alternative evolutions of the energy system toward sustainable development. The pathway groups, together with the illustrative cases, depict salient branching points for policy implementation and highlight different degrees of freedom and different routes to the sustainability objectives.

Defining energy security takes more than asking around

A. Cherp. (2012). Defining energy security takes more than asking around. Energy Policy, 48, 841-842. Gated. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.016.

The recent contribution by Benjamin Sovacool proposes 20 dimensions and 320 indicators of energy security in Asia. However, the method for identifying these dimensions and indicators – 64 semi-structured interviews – has three shortcomings. First, Asian policy makers responsible for energy security are absent from the pool of respondents dominated by academics. Second, no prioritization or contextualization of energy security concerns is attempted, leading to an excessively long generic list. Third, no disagreements between the interviewed experts are accounted for. Future attempts to define energy security based on perceptions should involve relevant social actors, include mechanisms for discriminating between primary and secondary concerns and find ways to constructively report on disagreements.

The three perspectives on energy security: intellectual history, disciplinary roots and the potential for integration

A. Cherp, & J. Jewell. (2011). The three perspectives on energy security: intellectual history, disciplinary roots and the potential for integration. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3 (4), 202-212. Gated. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2011.07.001.

Scholarly discourses on energy security have developed in response to initially separate policy agendas such as supply of fuels for armies and transportation, uninterrupted provision of electricity, and ensuring market and investment effectiveness. As a result three distinct perspectives on energy security have emerged: the “sovereignty” perspective with its roots in political science; the “robustness” perspective with its roots in natural science and engineering; and the “resilience” perspective with its roots in economics and complex systems analysis. At present, the energy security challenges are increasingly entangled so that they cannot be analyzed within the boundaries of any single perspective. To respond to these challenges, the energy security studies should not only achieve mastery of the disciplinary knowledge underlying all three perspectives but also weave the theories, methods and knowledge from these different mindsets together in a unified interdisciplinary effort. The key challenges for interdisciplinary energy security studies are drawing the credible boundaries of the field, formulating credible research questions and developing a methodological toolkit acceptable for all three perspectives.

A nuclear-powered North Africa: just a desert mirage or is there something on the horizon?

J. Jewell. (2010). A nuclear-powered North Africa: just a desert mirage or is there something on the horizon? Energy Policy, 39 (8), 4445-4457. In Press, Corrected Proof. Gated. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.042.

All of the North African countries have plans to develop nuclear power. If successful, nuclear energy could supply up to 9-15% of all electricity consumption in the region by 2030. How realistic are these plans and under what conditions can they be implemented? This paper seeks to answer this question by analyzing the motivations and capacities for deploying nuclear energy in the five North African countries by examining both regional and national factors. These factors are compared to similar characteristics of the countries with existing nuclear power programs using a series of quantitative indicators. While all five countries have strong motivations to develop nuclear power, which result from the high growth rates in demand for electricity and energy security concerns, their financial and institutional capacities to deploy nuclear energy vary and are generally lower than in those countries which already operate nuclear power plants. Most likely, North Africa will need to rely on external assistance to implement its nuclear energy plans. The article identifies three scenarios of nuclear power development from the interplay between internal and external factors, particularly the success of renewable energy projects and the ability to attract international investment in nuclear power.

Ready for nuclear energy?: An assessment of capacities and motivations for launching new national nuclear power programs

J. Jewell. (2011). Ready for nuclear energy? An assessment of capacities and motivations for launching new national nuclear power programs. Energy Policy, 39 (3), 1041–1055. Gated. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.10.041.

The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that as of July 2009 there were 52 countries interested in building their first nuclear power plant. This paper characterizes and evaluates these “Newcomer Countries” in terms of their capacity and motivations to develop nuclear power. It quantifies factors historically associated with the development of nuclear energy programs and then benchmarks the Newcomers against these data. Countries with established nuclear power programs, particularly where nuclear facilities are privately owned, are typically larger, wealthier and politically stable economies with high government effectiveness. Nuclear power was historically launched during periods of high electricity consumption growth. Other indicators for the potential of nuclear power include: the size of the national grid, the presence of international grid connections and security of fuel supply for electricity production. We identify 10 Newcomers which most closely resemble the Established Nuclear Power Countries and thus are most likely to deploy nuclear energy, 10 countries where the development of nuclear energy is uncertain due to high political instability, 14 countries with lower capacities where pursuing nuclear energy may require especially strong international cooperation and 18 countries where the development of nuclear power is less likely due to their significantly lower capacities and motivations.

Governing global energy: systems, transitions, complexity

A. Cherp, J. Jewell & A. Goldthau. (2010). Governing global energy: systems, transitions, complexity. Global Policy, 2, 75-88. Open Access. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2010.00059.x

Global energy systems face multiple interconnected challenges which need to be addressed urgently and simultaneously, thus requiring unprecedented energy transitions. This article addresses the implications of such transitions for global energy governance. It departs from the reductionist approach where governance institutions and mechanisms are analysed in isolation from each other. Instead, the authors consider governance systems as complex and historically rooted ‘arenas’ coevolving with the energy issues they address. We argue that effective global energy governance requires striking a tenuous balance between the determination and efficiency needed to drive energy transitions with the flexibility and innovation necessary to deal with complexity and uncertainty. The article reviews three distinct and relatively autonomous global energy governance arenas: energy security, energy access and climate change. It argues that governance in each of these arenas can be enhanced through strengthening its linkages with the other two arenas. While widely shared and supported global energy goals are necessary and desirable, there is no case for a ‘global energy government’ as a single institution or regime. The current complexity of global energy governance is thus an opportunity to establish a polycentric governance system with various parts fostering complementary approaches necessary for addressing the highly interlinked energy challenges. • The three global energy challenges – providing access to modern forms of energy to all people, ensuring energy security for every nation and minimising the effects of energy systems on the climate should be resolved urgently and simultaneously. This requires an unprecedented transformation of national energy systems guided by internationally shared energy goals focused on these challenges.• On the one hand, global energy governance aimed at addressing these challenges should command long-term commitment, determination, focus and resources with a high level of integration of energy policies across scales of governance, supply and demand sides of energy systems, and energy technologies.• On the other hand, the complexity of energy challenges calls for wide involvement of different actors as well as flexibility, innovation, openness and diversity. Nations, energy industries and communities will need to find unique solutions that work for them. No panaceas, either technological or institutional, are likely to succeed.• This combination of determination and flexibility required from global energy governance cannot be achieved within a single agency or regime but rather requires a polycentric governance system. The seeds of such a system already exist in three global energy governance arenas focused on energy security, energy access and climate change. A successful reform will need to transform these arenas by providing stronger interlinkages while preserving the unique and important characteristics of each of them.

Measuring energy security: from universal indicators to contextualized frameworks

A. Cherp & J. Jewell. (2011). Measuring energy security: from universal indicators to contextualized frameworks. The Routledge Handbook of Energy Security. 330-355. (B. K. Sovacool, Ed.). Routledge. Gated. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203834602. Preprint.

The current debate on measuring energy security is largely focused on finding the “right” indicators. In the recent special issue on energy security in Energy Policy, six of the eight articles were directly related to indicator development and energy security quantification. 1 Given the complexity of energy security, it is understandable that researchers and policymakers alike seek quantification which can simplify and cut through this complexity. However, in this chapter we will argue that much more attention should be given to the process of indicator identification and application as well as to the underlying assumptions and perspectives that shape this process. Thus our discussion starts with the inherent choices and trade-offs surrounding indicator selection which are generally inexplicit and unstated in the literature.