Suchergebnisse

With rising energy demand in Asia and the crisis in Ukraine threatening Europe's gas supplies, energy security is on top of the political agenda. Can low-carbon societies deliver on this priority? The answer to this question rests on the extent and timing of low-carbon policies and the definition energy security: security of what?; security for whom?; and security from which threats? In this article, I explore the energy security implications of (1) Europe's 2030 climate/energy package and (2) global long-term climate stabilization. Over the short-term the priority for Europe's climate/energy goals and energy security are not aligned: the former is achieving emissions reductions for the biggest emitters whereas the latter is reducing the vulnerability of the smallest and most vulnerable countries. Long-term global climate stabilization leads to lower energy imports and resource depletion along with higher diversity of energy options in China, the EU and India, but it can limit energy export revenues for the US and other energy exporters.

With rising energy demand in Asia and the crisis in Ukraine threatening Europe's gas supplies, energy security is on top of the political agenda. Can low-carbon societies deliver on this priority? The answer to this question rests on the extent and timing of low-carbon policies and the definition energy security: security of what?; security for whom?; and security from which threats? In this article, I explore the energy security implications of (1) Europe's 2030 climate/energy package and (2) global long-term climate stabilization. Over the short-term the priority for Europe's climate/energy goals and energy security are not aligned: the former is achieving emissions reductions for the biggest emitters whereas the latter is reducing the vulnerability of the smallest and most vulnerable countries. Long-term global climate stabilization leads to lower energy imports and resource depletion along with higher diversity of energy options in China, the EU and India, but it can limit energy export revenues for the US and other energy exporters.

Keeping global warming below 1.5°C is technically possible but is it politically feasible? Understanding political feasibility requires answering three questions: (a) "Feasibility of what?," (b) "Feasibility when and where?," and (c) "Feasibility for whom?." In relation to the 1.5°C target, these questions translate into (a) identifying specific actions comprising the 1.5°C pathways; (b) assessing the economic and political costs of these actions in different socioeconomic and political contexts; and (c) assessing the economic and institutional capacity of relevant social actors to bear these costs. This view of political feasibility stresses costs and capacities in contrast to the prevailing focus on benefits and motivations which mistakes desirability for feasibility. The evidence on the political feasibility of required climate actions is not systematic, but clearly indicates that the costs of required actions are too high in relation to capacities to bear these costs in relevant contexts. In the future, costs may decline and capacities may increase which would reduce political constraints for at least some solutions. However, this is unlikely to happen in time to avoid a temperature overshoot. Further research should focus on exploring the "dynamic political feasibility space" constrained by costs and capacities in order to find more feasible pathways to climate stabilization. This article is categorized under: The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Decarbonizing Energy and/or Reducing Demand.

Keeping global warming below 1.5°C is technically possible but is it politically feasible? Understanding political feasibility requires answering three questions: (a) "Feasibility of what?," (b) "Feasibility when and where?," and (c) "Feasibility for whom?." In relation to the 1.5°C target, these questions translate into (a) identifying specific actions comprising the 1.5°C pathways; (b) assessing the economic and political costs of these actions in different socioeconomic and political contexts; and (c) assessing the economic and institutional capacity of relevant social actors to bear these costs. This view of political feasibility stresses costs and capacities in contrast to the prevailing focus on benefits and motivations which mistakes desirability for feasibility. The evidence on the political feasibility of required climate actions is not systematic, but clearly indicates that the costs of required actions are too high in relation to capacities to bear these costs in relevant contexts. In the future, costs may decline and capacities may increase which would reduce political constraints for at least some solutions. However, this is unlikely to happen in time to avoid a temperature overshoot. Further research should focus on exploring the "dynamic political feasibility space" constrained by costs and capacities in order to find more feasible pathways to climate stabilization. This article is categorized under: The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Decarbonizing Energy and/or Reducing Demand.

The German energy transition has been hailed as a role model for climate action. However, plans for the construction of three large-scale Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) import terminals are receiving strong state support. This is inconsistent with Germany's climate targets, which require a reduction rather than expansion of natural gas consumption. In our paper, we aim to unpack the connection between the risk of natural gas lock-in and the energy transition. We analyse the co-evolution of the techno-economic, socio-technical and political realms of the German natural gas sector and influence of actors within that process. We use a combination of energy system and interview data, and introduce a new approach to triangulate material and actor analysis. We show that four natural gas lock-in mechanisms cause the support for LNG in Germany: (A) the geopolitical influence from the United States, combined with (B) security of supply concerns due to the planned coal and nuclear phase-out, (C) pressure from a wide variety of state and private sector actors, and (D) sunk investments in existing gas infrastructure. Two additional mechanisms supporting the strong position of natural gas are (E) the strength of the emerging synthetic gas niche, and (F) weak opposition against LNG and natural gas. We highlight the severely overlooked lock-in potential and related emissions, which could complicate and decelerate energy transitions as more countries reach a more advanced phase of the energy transition.

The German energy transition has been hailed as a role model for climate action. However, plans for the construction of three large-scale Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) import terminals are receiving strong state support. This is inconsistent with Germany's climate targets, which require a reduction rather than expansion of natural gas consumption. In our paper, we aim to unpack the connection between the risk of natural gas lock-in and the energy transition. We analyse the co-evolution of the techno-economic, socio-technical and political realms of the German natural gas sector and influence of actors within that process. We use a combination of energy system and interview data, and introduce a new approach to triangulate material and actor analysis. We show that four natural gas lock-in mechanisms cause the support for LNG in Germany: (A) the geopolitical influence from the United States, combined with (B) security of supply concerns due to the planned coal and nuclear phase-out, (C) pressure from a wide variety of state and private sector actors, and (D) sunk investments in existing gas infrastructure. Two additional mechanisms supporting the strong position of natural gas are (E) the strength of the emerging synthetic gas niche, and (F) weak opposition against LNG and natural gas. We highlight the severely overlooked lock-in potential and related emissions, which could complicate and decelerate energy transitions as more countries reach a more advanced phase of the energy transition.

The pursuit of civil nuclear power, frequently justified in the name of national energy security, paradoxically entangles most states in long-term interdependencies with the few countries that can supply nuclear technologies. These interdependencies are insufficiently documented and poorly understood. This article presents and analyzes a new dataset of nuclear cooperation agreements signed or announced between 2000 and 2015. We find that Russia and the US dominate international technological nuclear cooperation, with the US' dominance particularly prominent in safety and security and Russia's in nuclear power plant construction, reactor and fuel supply, decommissioning and waste. When it comes to these technologies, Russia is the supplier in approximately half of all agreements; France, the US, China, Korea, and Japan together account for another 40%. All in all, six countries are suppliers in over 90% of all international nuclear agreements, a far higher supplier concentration than in oil and gas markets. These results show that the global future of nuclear power depends as much on international cooperation as on national motivations and capacities. Effective policies and institutions supporting the safe use of nuclear power should therefore be directed at managing its international as well as national aspects.

The pursuit of civil nuclear power, frequently justified in the name of national energy security, paradoxically entangles most states in long-term interdependencies with the few countries that can supply nuclear technologies. These interdependencies are insufficiently documented and poorly understood. This article presents and analyzes a new dataset of nuclear cooperation agreements signed or announced between 2000 and 2015. We find that Russia and the US dominate international technological nuclear cooperation, with the US' dominance particularly prominent in safety and security and Russia's in nuclear power plant construction, reactor and fuel supply, decommissioning and waste. When it comes to these technologies, Russia is the supplier in approximately half of all agreements; France, the US, China, Korea, and Japan together account for another 40%. All in all, six countries are suppliers in over 90% of all international nuclear agreements, a far higher supplier concentration than in oil and gas markets. These results show that the global future of nuclear power depends as much on international cooperation as on national motivations and capacities. Effective policies and institutions supporting the safe use of nuclear power should therefore be directed at managing its international as well as national aspects.

Economic development, technological innovation, and policy change are especially prominent factors shaping energy transitions. Therefore explaining energy transitions requires combining insights from disciplines investigating these factors. The existing literature is not consistent in identifying these disciplines nor proposing how they can be combined. We conceptualize national energy transitions as a co-evolution of three types of systems: energy flows and markets, energy technologies, and energy-related policies. The focus on the three types of systems gives rise to three perspectives on national energy transitions: techno-economic with its roots in energy systems analysis and various domains of economics; socio-technical with its roots in sociology of technology, STS, and evolutionary economics; and political with its roots in political science. We use the three perspectives as an organizing principle to propose a meta-theoretical framework for analyzing national energy transitions. Following Elinor Ostrom's approach, the proposed framework explains national energy transitions through a nested conceptual map of variables and theories. In comparison with the existing meta-theoretical literature, the three perspectives framework elevates the role of political science since policies are likely to be increasingly prominent in shaping 21st century energy transitions.

Economic development, technological innovation, and policy change are especially prominent factors shaping energy transitions. Therefore explaining energy transitions requires combining insights from disciplines investigating these factors. The existing literature is not consistent in identifying these disciplines nor proposing how they can be combined. We conceptualize national energy transitions as a co-evolution of three types of systems: energy flows and markets, energy technologies, and energy-related policies. The focus on the three types of systems gives rise to three perspectives on national energy transitions: techno-economic with its roots in energy systems analysis and various domains of economics; socio-technical with its roots in sociology of technology, STS, and evolutionary economics; and political with its roots in political science. We use the three perspectives as an organizing principle to propose a meta-theoretical framework for analyzing national energy transitions. Following Elinor Ostrom's approach, the proposed framework explains national energy transitions through a nested conceptual map of variables and theories. In comparison with the existing meta-theoretical literature, the three perspectives framework elevates the role of political science since policies are likely to be increasingly prominent in shaping 21st century energy transitions.

This paper contributes to understanding national variations in using low-carbon electricity sources by comparing the evolution of nuclear, wind and solar power in Germany and Japan. It develops and applies a framework for analyzing low-carbon electricity transitions based on interplay of techno-economic, political and socio-technical processes. We explain why in the 1970s–1980s, the energy paths of the two countries were remarkably similar, but since the 1990s Germany has become a leader in renewables while phasing out nuclear energy, whereas Japan has deployed less renewables while becoming a leader in nuclear power. We link these differences to the faster growth of electricity demand and energy insecurity in Japan, the easier diffusion of onshore wind power technology and the weakening of the nuclear power regime induced by stagnation and competition from coal and renewables in Germany. We show how these changes involve the interplay of five distinct mechanisms which may also play a role in other energy transitions.