Below is the abstract of an article I wrote for the International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy in 2021. Link to full paper at the end of the post.
The European Union has produced hundreds of laws in the field of electricity policy in the last three decades, on issues ranging from nuclear disposal to renewable energy generation support. Is the EU electricity policy of the last 30 years balanced, according to the classical energy trilemma framework?
An all-inclusive, quantitative, multi-decade examination of the EU energy policy is still lacking. Besides the traditional policy perspectives, policy density and intensity, this paper proposes a novel method to measure policy outcomes: policy importance. The results show that EU energy legislation is indeed imbalanced.
Environmental concerns rank first among EU electricity policy priorities; however, since 2003, the creation of an internal market has started to challenge environment as the top priority. Furthermore, internal market policies tend to have a higher trend of adoption than environment. Security of supply is at the bottom of EU policymakers’ attention.
The EU energy policy is becoming more intricate, but not more revolutionary. Meaningful policy changes occur at a stagnating yearly rate, despite the increasing power of the EU institutions.
Below is the abstract of an article I wrote for the 13th International Conference on Energy Economics and Technology in 2019. Link to full paper at the end of the post.
Our aim in this research paper is to assess the evolution of European Union’s electricity policy ambition. To find its electricity policy ambition we identify the targets and objectives of EU legislation and analyse their evolution in time, for the four main pillars of the EU electricity policy and for our selected categories.
The assessment is based on a policy density and policy intensity analysis. The empirical research resulted in about 300 pieces of binding EU legislation in the electricity sector, reuniting around 700 targets and objectives, during 30 years of collected data.
The policy density analysis covered several dimensions: stages, overall numbers, EUR-Lex placement, pillars and categories. The research found that legally-binding legislation has an upward trend from 1986 to 2018. Almost half of the EU electricity legislation classifies as environment legislation, if analysed from the pillars of energy policy viewpoint. If a more nuanced filter is used, categories, then environment and nuclear legislation make about two thirds of all EU electricity-relevant binding legislation.
The policy intensity analysis revealed that, using a categories filter, environment and internal market are dominating, with the nuclear categories far behind. It reveals that there are many pieces of legislation in the nuclear sector, but they are generally less complex, with fewer targets and objectives than other fields.
Constructing a major targets/objectives and categories matrix, we found that the largest amount of financing is towards nuclear research. Most expansion of duties for the European Commission happened for the internal electricity market category, followed by, surprisingly, security of supply. Major developments took place mainly for environmental; energy efficiency and savings; and internal energy market categories.
This heated (environmental) debate is fundamentally about numbers. How much energy could each source deliver, at what economic and social cost, and with what risks? But actual numbers are rarely mentioned. In public debates, people just say “Nuclear is a money pit” or “We have a huge amount of wave and wind.” The trouble with this sort of language is that it’s not sufficient to know that something is huge: we need to know how the one “huge” compares with another “huge,” namely our huge energy consumption. To make this comparison, we need numbers, not adjectives.
The book tries to quantitatively check how a world driven by renewable energy would like. The calculations look at possibilities, how much we can produce, compared with how much we consume, in terms of kW, ignoring the costs of technologies and deployment. Only if the numbers add up is checked.
The research is divided into three parts. First part is taking different classes of consumption and production and stacks them into two columns, seeing how the numbers look like, The second part explores scenarios involving various deployments of renewable electricity technologies or carbon reduction. Finally, the third part presents the technical analysis behind the numbers presented.
The analysis focuses on the United Kingdom, investigating how much the country can produce in terms of renewable electricity and looking at different scenarios, including imports for more renewable-potent neighbours.
The investigation by David MacKey is looking at the key problems of energy sustainability, checking real energy consumption, not only electricity, but including for example transport, products we buy and agriculture.
Although feeling a bit dated sometimes, Sustainable Energy, first published in 2008, still brings insightful findings. It is one the most, if not the most comprehensive analysis of how realistic a renewable future is.
Unfortunately, David MacKey passed away in 2016, but his superb analysis remains. He was Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge.
I recommend the first part of the book to everyone interested in energy, while the third part is really for only those really into the topic.
This is the first book I post which was read on my new e-reader.
Despite many differences in agronomic practices and in cultivated crops, all traditional agricultures shared the same energetic foundation. They were powered by the photosynthetic conversion of solar radiation, producing food for people, feed for animals, recycled wastes for the replenishment of soil fertility, and fuels for smelting the metals needed to make simple farm tools.
The books from Vaclav Smil are a trove of knowledge on energy evolution. This book discusses the evolution of human energy advances over time, from agriculture to weapons.
The book reads more as an academic article, with a plethora of references and sources. One sixth of the book is just references. Very dense in knowledge and explanations, it overwhelms the reader with the sheer depth of analysis.
Smil tries to use largely a single energy unit, joules, to measure everything, from the various techniques to harness animals to work to the different ways to pass water through the watermills. The purpose is to quantify the evolution of human energy efficiency over time.
The book is encyclopedic in its depth and range, truly a history. The book dryness of writing and data is broken by very informative and engaging boxes, explaining various facts and developments.
The only downside is the grammar errors found here and there sometimes.
I was impressed by the precision and correct analysis of energy sources and transformations, missed by many pundits.
Also impressive is the general neutral tone regarding various sources that the author manages to impose.
Overall, an incredible book, THE book on energy history.
The MBA in Energy at the Academy of Economic Studies (ASE) in Bucharest starts the registrations for prospective candidates between 23-25 July 2018.
Organized by the Faculty of Business Administration in Foreign Languages (FABIZ), the Energy Master is the best in Romania and is done in collaboration with representatives of the energy business environment (OMV Petrom, Siemens, CEZ, Electrica, Transgaz etc.).
The programme is open to all bachelor degree graduates, but candidates need one year experience in energy. Of course, a good command of English is required, as it is taught in English.
It is a flexible MBA, held during weekends, for 4 semesters. The courses range from “EU Policy in Energy” to “Energy Trading”. The professors and experts’ team is excellent, including one of Romania’s best energy professionals, Corina Popescu.
Some saw in the mines scientific proof of biblical flood. Some credited coal with protecting people from the bubonic plague; others accused it of promoting baldness, tooth decay, sordid murders, caustic speech and fuzzy thinking.More recently many of us believed we could burn vast amounts of coal without disrupting the natural balance of the planet. No doubt we have still much to learn about coal, but at least we’ve been able to dispel many of the old myths.
The book talks about the history of coal, since Roman times to modern day. Barbara Freese talks about both the good and the bad sides of the mineral. As the author is an environmental lawyer, the book slightly tips on the bad side of coal, however the research is deep, insightful and entertaining.
Coal is appreciated by Ms Freese as the basis of the Industrial revolution and the rock that made the British Empire and the United States. It significantly improved living standards by increasing on a massive scale the efficiency of industrial processes.
On the other side, the bad environmental effects were constant, from the fumes and hard working conditions to current greenhouse gas problems.
The message of the book is that coal was never popular, but always useful. The author finishes the book on a positive note, such as using coal for in plastics and other alternative uses.
Over $5.3 trillion of currencies are traded every day, yet nations like the Philippines, Peru, Poland or the UK hold less than $80bn in reserves to defend against speculators. Enough to last only a few days.
The book is trying to identify future trends, developments that human society might take. Dixon considers that there are six main future trends, conveniently named: Fast, Urban, Tribal, Universal, Radical and Ethical (FUTURE).
Patrick Dixon has a lot of guessing and the arguments he shows are shallow. There are so many statements that some will certainly turn true.
Nonetheless, he is intriguing and has a good grasp of what is happening in the world. It makes a good overall read and challenges the reader. However, I did not feel that he bring anything new, all being trends that exist already and are extrapolated into the future.
Patrick Dixon is a professional futurologist, having a company specialized in this niche, with many reputable international clients. He writes often, on various subjects.
The style of reading is very fluid and it follows very neatly the logic of each chapter or trend. It make a good read overall, but not exceptional.
Back in 1972, the computer modelers for The Limits to Growth calculated 42 years ago that known world copper reserves would be entirely depleted in 36 years, lead in 26 years, mercury in 13 years, natural gas in 38 years, petroleum in 38 years, silver in 16 years, tin in 17 years, tungsten in 40 years, and zinc in 23 years.
The book from Ronald Bailey is a skeptical view of doom prophets, reminding readers how many predictions turned out to be false. Bailey gives several examples, such as the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth, agriculture or the Swedish sperm count, among others.
Books predicting future become old quickly, so it is more constructive to look at books analyzing available data. His book is a well research argument for a libertarian view of the world, putting in place the notion that we live the best lives in the history of human kind. However, the book challenges one’s beliefs and it is difficult to read by an environmentalist.
The author argues that never do anything for the first time also known as the precautionary principle will never allow innovations and the society having this as principle evolve (kind of the Chinese society in the 15-19 centuries).
Bailey’s interestingly notices the concept of pathological science, when researchers become blinded by their own moral beliefs.
On climate change, he notes, quoting Dan Kahan and the Yale cultural cognition project, that the debate is chiefly not about science, but about a clash of strongly held values, between mainly Individualist/Hierarchical and Communitarian/Egalitarian set of beliefs, both having different risk aversion. The more educated each person from this division, the more empirical evidence is found consistent with own beliefs, hence a confirmation bias.
On environment protection in general, Bailey’s notices that rich nations protect nature better, for example forest surface re-growing and air quality.
Between Malthusian doomsters and cornucopian optimists, the book tries to strike a balance and the author is conscious about his own potential biases.
Nonetheless, he correctly highlights that the environment discussion is a clash of ideas rather than a scientific debate, both sides having good, solid arguments. Linking with a previous book I just read, Guns, Germs and Steel, which has a liberal view in the US politics sense, environment protection is important: human societies in the Americas, for example, likely killed all large fauna (over 100 kg) crippling their future development. On the other hand, excessive risk aversion and a view of a perfect past (such as a pristine nature) could hinder and eventually destroy a society with this view.
It is a good book that I would recommend reading in balance with Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, so the reader can make its own opinion.