Transcript ENERGY INDICATORS FOR MAURITIUS: A HOLISTIC APPROACH

ENERGY POLICY:
WHAT IS
COHERENCE?
Khalil Elahee, MA(Cantab), PhD
Faculty of Engineering,
University of Mauritius
Content
 Energy: E5 dimensions
 Indicators: what are these?
 Selection, calculation and presentation of
indicators
 Key observations
 Outline Energy Policy: an analysis
 Conclusion
Energy




Engineering
Economic
Environmental
Ethical
5E’s
of
Sustainable
Energy
Management
Indicators
 Indicators are
derived from data
and are the most
basic tools for
analyzing changes
Data
Indicators
Index
Information
Selecting Energy Indicators
 Holistic Set of
Indicators
 Relevance
 Understandability
 Reliability
 Accessibility of data
Selected Indicators
 Environmental
 Indicator 1: GHG emission
from energy use per
capita
 Indicator 2: Most
significant pollutant from
energy use (SO2) per
capita
 Ethical
 Indicator 3: Share of
household income on
energy
 Indicator 4: Investment in
clean energy/ total
investment
 Economic
 Indicator 5: Energy
resilience (net import of
energy/ total energy
requirement)
 Indicator 6: Burden on
energy investment /GDP
 Engineering
 Indicator 7: Energy use
per GDP
 Indicator 8: Share of
renewable energy per
total energy requirement
Calculation of Indicators

Indicator ( I year) = ( X – Y ) / Z
where
X = Observed value
Y = Target value
Z = Difference between
a reference value and Y
Comparing 1990, 2000 and 2004
I1990
I1995
I2004
Indicator 1
-0.19
0.034
0.301
Indicator 2
0.32
0.42
1.116
Indicator 3
0.125
0.13
0.165
Indicator 4
0.964
0.925
0.9
Indicator 5
0.594
0.67
0.78
Indicator 6
0.462
0.311
0.554
Indicator 7
1.157
0.842
0.783
Indicator 8
0.625
0.718
0.845
Energy Indicators
1
1.2
1
8
2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
7
-0.2
3
6
4
5
I1990
I1995
I2004
Key observations
 Except for Energy Intensity ( Indicator 7), there has been no
significant improvement for any of the Indicators since 1990.
 The worst cases are than of GHG emissions per capita (
Indicator 1) and emission of most significant pollutant (SO2) per
capita (Indicator 2)
 A shrinking of the STAR is a good sign of sustainable use of
energy. This happened between 1990 and 1995 ( dwindling use
of coal cf. hydropower) , but thereafter the situation grew worse.
 The situation in 2006 was indeed worse because of increasing
use of fossil fuel ( increase in coal import by 26 % ) and of
decreasing use of local energy resources by 6 % ( in 2005 cf.
2004)
Conclusions

Making the STAR shrink is our objective:





Reduce CO2 and SO2 emissions
Affordable energy for all
Investment in renewables
Energy efficiency improvement
Let’s face the facts: the technology exists, external
factors are known and the problem is INTERNAL , ie
politico-economic and administrative!
OR ELSE OUR STAR WILL BURST!
Outline
document:
an analysis
Ethical Dimension
 Vision: “energy independence”quoting APJ Abdul
Kalam (p16)
 Self-sufficiency is already evoked in 1997 NLPTS
Vision 2020 paper. Moreover, the CEB Corporate Plan
2003-13 points in same the direction.
 Long-term vision is not defined beyond 2025.
 The notion of “ interdependence” or regional potential
of codevelopment is not included.
 None of the 5 key objectives of the Outline refers
directly to sustainable development, renewable or
environment.
 “70% self-sufficiency in 50 years”, “limit
vulnerability to imported fossil fuel” (p1516)
 No clear target set beyond 2025.
 Cf. Réunion where by 2025, 90% selfsufficiency in electricity generation is expected
at the cost of EUR 1 billion ( PRERURE)
 In Mauritius, against an investment of EUR 2
billion in 25 years in electricity generation, no
target is set. However, 75% and 57% of the
latter will be dependent on fossil fuel in 2013
and in 2025 respectively (p17)
 FOCUS. “financial sustainability” of CEB
(Foreword and 22 out of 30 pages). Even the
Utility Regulator Act(2004) to be proclaimed
by end 2008 makes the “sustainability and
viability of the utility services” a top priority
( III-4)
 The Outline document is largely focused on the
CEB.
 Energy-transport, energy-tourism and energydevelopment linkages are not addressed.
 What is CEB is no more the sole provider as
possible under the URA(2004)?
 The focus customers’ interests and universal
access to energy is missing.
 LOCAL PARTICIPATION & COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. An
energy efficiency campaign was launched in 2005(p13).
Democratization of the economy is evoked (p1). Participation
of the sugar industry is required in the context of the
MAAS(p7).
 Lack of feedback and reporting icw the energy efficiency
campaign. The strategy of public involvement is questionable. The
Energy Efficiency Act due by the end of 2008 must be preceded
by sensitization.
 Decentralization of energy systems is vaguely referred to (p19).
 BOO thru unsollicited bids is preferred to PPP where public
interest would have been safeguarded both in terms of selling
price of electricity and of environment protection.
 Instead of confidence-building and searching for win-win situation
with the sugar sector in dire need of re-engineering into a new
cane industry, the CEB is pitted against the latter. Conflict-prone
references such as “apportionment of investment”, “subsidy from
CEB” or “bagasse-coal …becomes coal-only” ( p21-24) reveal a
problem-oriented agenda.
 GLOBAL CONCERN. Reference to
Stern, to the new US approach and to
the vulnerability of SIDS. ( p1, p7)
 Yet coal is included not as an alternative
to bagasse during intercrop but as the
main part of the energy mix. See details
below.
 TRANSPARENCY. “Need for the Regulator to have
unfettered access to all information.” (p20)
 This refers to future practice.
 In the meantime, decisions need to be taken not only
in total financial transparency but also in a coherent
manner ( OECD and IAEA norms on coherence and
sustainable energy indicators)
 The decision to include the Waste-to-Energy project
and the coal-project as part of the short-term energy
plan was taken in spite of “insufficient data provided by
the promoters” ( p6 of CEB document annexed to
Outline document). This was largely at the expense of
a proposal with excellent references that would have
optimized the use of bagasse ( p8 of the latter
document). Not to mention the wind proposal which is
now null-and-void.
ENERGY-ENGINEERING
DIMENSIONS
 WIND. Not in CEB submitted as annex to the
Outline document, yet specific project fully
included in Outline ( p11 and p28) published in
April 2007.
 Now revealed that since Dec 2006, specific proposal is
null and void. Choice of strategic partner, rather than
owner thru unsolicited bid, should be based on
transparency and credibility.
 Potential of Bigara should be exploited immediately (
confirmed since Batelle Report, 1986)
 WASTE-TO-ENERGY.Provision made
specifically for several incineration projects
(4.7% in 2013 and 6% in 2025) (p12,p17)
 Linkage with Integrated Waste Management
(3R’s) and other waste-to-energy options (
methane from landfill and biogas) is not
considered.
 ETHANOL. E10 will be introduced not
before 2010, report on tests expected by
mid 2008 (p13)
 In National Energy Conference (1980), results
already reported, literature abounds and
Brazilian experience is available. Why so
much delay?
COAL. Dedicated coal power plants are compared
with bagasse-coal power plants and stated to be
“20% more efficient” (p5). “To limit CO2 emissions,
Mauritius should resort to clean coal technology”
(p21). “”Coal is replacing oil in the medium
term”(p21)
 Comparing like with unlike, not defining the efficiency
considered, neglecting the potential of Research,
Development and Innovation and restricting the
meaning of clean coal technology to pulverized coal or
low sulphur emissions.
 The unbelievable conclusion is that coal-only is better
than for the environment than bagasse-coal.
 Coal in fact does not replace oil except in the short
term. From 2007 to 2013, the % coal use decreases
while the % oil use is constant. At 20%...and it remains
there!
 BAGASSE. “More bagasse is used in
absolute terms” (p5). “Cane biomass is not
yet fully tapped.”(p8)
 In fact the energy from bagasse in absolute
terms is DECREASING today!
 The MAAS plans for 600 GWh from bagasse in
2015. However, in 2013, 15% of 3092 GWh is
expected from bagasse according to the
Outline, that is 464 GWh.
 Scope for cane biomass use is 10 times more
with energy canes, advanced technology and
use of tops and leaves. Research,
Development and Innovation should be a
priority ( as for ocean energy)
ECONOMICENVIRONMENTAL
DIMENSIONS
 DEMAND-SUPPLY.”2 million tourists
expected in 2015” (p1). “5% electricity
demand growth annually”. Demand problem
is due to peak ( 300 MW today cf. 500 MW in
2013)
 The requirement of 2 million tourists should be
assessed systematically. Green tourism?
 It is essential to identify WHO DRIVES the
demand and WHO PAYS for it.
 Peak/demand-side management should be an
immediate priority
 PRICING POLICY. “Incentives limited to
environment e.g carbon credits” (p7). “subsidies
as carbon credit only.” (p23,24 and 28)
 Environmental costs should be fully integrated. Ethanol
e.g will not penetrate the market without crosssubsidization. Is LPG not currently subsidized?
 Brazil put in USD 30 billion in 20 years to promote
ethanol and got back USD 50 billion saving on oil
import. Today the benefits…
 The issue of environmental costs related to fuels e.g
coal and products e.g big cars should be fully
addressed.
 Revenue due to environmental costs imposition may
be directed to Research, Development and Innovation
in sustainable energy, climate change mitigation and
adaptation.
CONCLUSION
 Recommendation for URGENT CONSENSUAL
ACTION though a Sustainable Energy Act
instead of experts developing policy based
on flawed Outline document
 Coherent, holistic medium-long term policy ( up to
2050) to promote renewables, energy efficiency as well
as a regional energy industry
 Energy Management Office for facilitating
implementation/coordination IMMEDIATELY.
 Finance programmes and cross-subsidization thru an
Environment/Energy Tax on all non-sustainable energy
products, from fuel to lamps (reducing VAT if needed)
Thanking you…