Exergy Economics Workshop 2016

Over 40 economists, engineers and social scientists converged last week on the sunny University of Sussex campus for the second International Exergy Economics Workshop. Organised by the Centre on Innovation and Energy Demand (CIED) and the Centre on Industrial Energy, Materials and Products (CIE-MAP), the workshop was a chance for researchers to come together to share knowledge, discuss progress, and initiate future research collaborations in exergy economics.

Exergy economics is a nascent and heterodox approach to studying energy use within the economy. It is differentiated from conventional energy economics in its use of useful exergy as a measure of the quantity of energy flows, as opposed to the more conventional indicators of primary or final energy.

photo of participants standing on some grass outside

Participants who took part in the Exergy Economics workshop 2016.

But what is useful exergy? For an in-depth explanation, see the exergy economics website. In brief, exergy is a measure of the ability of an energy flow to perform physical work, a form of energy which is of a very high thermodynamic quality. Thermal energy – heat – is of an intrinsically low quality, in the sense that it cannot be fully converted to other energy forms, such as electricity. Whereas energy cannot be created nor destroyed – merely converted from one form to another – exergy can, and is, dissipated (destroyed) in every real conversion process. Simply adding together thermal and kinetic (motion) energy on a like-for-like basis is equivalent to adding apples and oranges. This fact has implications for the consistency of macro-level economic studies on energy use.

As an example, consider a can of kerosene within an insulated room. When burned, this slightly raises the room temperature, although the total amount of energy in the room is conserved. The quality of the energy, however, has diminished. In the form of heat it is less able to perform physical tasks (such as moving a car) than the initial chemical energy in the fuel. This is because the exergy which was initially present has largely been destroyed.

The second distinct aspect of exergy economics is that rather than the primary or final stages of the energy chain, it is the useful stage – the output of end-use conversion devices such as cars, furnaces or space heaters, for example – that is focused upon; hence the term useful exergy. Although it’s more difficult to estimate the useful energy (or exergy) output of these devices at the national level, it is useful exergy that is required to fulfil the need for society’s energy services (personal and freight mobility, illumination, thermal comfort, etc).

Whilst the burgeoning exergy economics literature is complementary to more conventional energy economics, it can potentially provide interesting new insights. In particular, evidence has emerged suggesting that useful exergy consumption provides a much larger contribution to growth in economic output than is implied by its smallcost share” (i.e. the share of national accounts representing payments to the energy sector). This possibility raises implications for the feasibility of easily achieving decoupling of energy consumption from economic growth, and in turn the ability to achieve carbon reduction commitments alongside continued growth in output.

The two-day workshop was organised as a means for showcasing the progress in, and raising the profile of, exergy economics. Attendees were encouraged to critically reflect upon the framework and answer the following questions:

  1. What are the strengths, weaknesses and state-of-the-art in exergy economics research?
  2. What are the conflicts and synergies between exergy economics and mainstream economics?
  3. What are the contributions of exergy economics to climate change and sustainability analysis?
  4. What are the potential policy implications of this work?
  5. Which future research directions in the area appear most promising?

To answer these questions, the workshop incorporated a number of parallel sessions, as well as more reflective breakout groups, facilitating numerous interesting discussions and insights. Attendees were challenged to define new areas of research, and many productive research collaborations are likely to emerge from it. A number of general themes emerged:

  • The link between useful exergy, energy services and human well-being: Whilst useful exergy has to date been a valuable way of describing the energy system from primary to useful stages, there is also promising potential for the field in describing the relationship between energy services (e.g. thermal comfort, transport and illumination), material services, and human well-being. If we can define a level of services needed for well-being – cooking requirements in a developing context, for example – what are the commensurate useful exergy (and thus primary energy) needs, and, in turn, what environmental impacts can be expected from this? A number of researchers are currently examining these links using an interesting variety of epistemological frameworks.
  • New insights into suppressing the environmental impacts of energy use: The concept of energy and material efficiency is at the centre of useful exergy analysis. Analysing energy systems from an exergy point of view can help us to locate the ‘low-hanging fruit’ of efficiency improvements and reduce carbon emissions. Furthermore, what are the policy implications for carbon reduction commitments if it is more difficult to decouple energy use from economic output than previously thought? Lastly, exergy may provide a basis for measuring the scarcity of a natural resource; given resource depletion concerns, how might we harness this to consider shifting taxation away from capital and onto environmental degradation?
  • The relationship between energy use and economic output: As mentioned, there are already some very interesting insights emerging using exergy analysis. But how might this area of research be extended? Different measures of output, new models, and a greater focus on the role of money and finance were all discussed. Moreover, how does the community reach out to mainstream economics more effectively? Michael Kumhof, director of research at the Bank of England, presented a fascinating plenary to the attendees on the significant role that energy (and particularly oil) plays in economic output.

In all, the workshop was very successful, and participants came away with an enhanced understanding both of the critical environmental issues facing society today, and of one technique for understanding them. Of course, as humble interdisciplinary researchers, we acknowledge the limitations of any one method of enquiry for solving a plethora of complex societal issues. But we believe that exergy economics has great potential for providing us with insights both new and exciting.

For more information on this event, as well as exergy economics more broadly, visit the exergy economics website.

Follow Sussex Energy Group Facebooktwitterlinkedin
Tagged with:
Posted in CIED, Conferences and events

Back to the DTI? – The merger of DECC and BIS is a new opportunity to integrate energy and industrial policies

Department of Energy & Climate Change, Westminster (image by Nigel Cox and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence)

Department of Energy & Climate Change, Westminster (image by Nigel Cox and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence)

As part of the new Prime Minister’s extensive reshuffle late last week, it was announced that the Departments of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) are to merge to form a new Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). Taken at face value, this looks like a backwards step to a time when energy and climate policy were much less important. But is the creation of BEIS necessarily a bad thing? Read more ›

Follow Sussex Energy Group Facebooktwitterlinkedin
Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in All Posts, News, policy

South Africa: could gas pave the way towards greener sources of energy?

In South Africa, the process of mining coal for power generation or for export is increasingly becoming difficult, because the ability to source finances in a carbon conscious market is limited. The country wants to reduce its dependence on coal and believes that in order to meet uncertain electricity demand, a smaller, more modular, and flexible form of electricity generation is needed. Liquefied natural gas (LNG), which burns more cleanly than any other fossil fuel, is deemed critical for paving the way towards an energy transition from dirtier coal to a greener source of energy. Gas complements not only renewable energy penetration, but it also speaks to regional trade ambitions within the Southern African Development Community (SADC), energy diversification, as well as integration into re-industrialization policies.

Coal miner with a helmet and headlamp

Coal miner returning home after his shift underground. Sourcing financing for coal mining is becoming more difficult in an increasingly carbon conscious market. Credit: Jan Truter (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

The technology to transport LNG via ships is also becoming more sophisticated, which would allow it to bypass the conventional route of pipelines. Therefore, a co-evolution of technology maturity, market dynamics, user preferences, energy and industrial policy are aligning to enable gas use in the country.

With this as its backdrop, South Africa launched its Gas Industrialization Unit (GIU) on 16 May 2016 in Cape Town. There are no indications as yet as to where the LNG may be imported or which ports are likely to be the first to gain such an initiative. This is now the second gas initiative by the government. Earlier last year the Department of Energy directed the department to procure a 3.12 GW gas-fired power plant to contribute towards the energy security of the country through the Independent Power Producer Programme (IPP).

It is envisaged that the Gas IPP will serve as a catalyst for industrial development, as it has been indicated that gas could also be a feedstock for new industrial uses, a source of heat for industrial process and for conversion of Gas to Liquid fuels (GTL). Although South Africa does have potential domestic shale gas reserves located within the Karoo region, this development will take many years to realise. Thus, the immediate plans for the Gas IPP is to import Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) through its three ports: Saldanha Bay (West Coast near Cape Town), Coega (Port Elizabeth) and Richards Bay (Durban).

Both initiatives are running in parallel with significant coordination between actors that include government, industries, academia and state-owned entities.

The Gas IPP is thought at this preliminary stage to be coordinated in a bundled offshore project. This means the entire value chain from LNG sourcing, Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU), pipeline to shore, and gas to power plant is to be procured by an independent private entity. Naturally, this would mean that as the Gas IPP is rolled out, bidding would be in the form of a consortium that would require substantial coordination between upstream, midstream and downstream players. Implementation of this programme will prove a challenging task. The challenges include not only coordination between players, but also the dollar base indexation of import LNG prices, which will have a direct impact on domestic electricity tariffs in South Africa. The country is already facing huge public resistance to electricity increases and its domestic currency is weakening against the US dollar. There are also potential implications for existing regulations, such as the Gas Act, the Ports Act, and the Electricity Regulation Act (ERA), which have not yet been applied or tested with this new initiative.

Despite these challenges, there is a substantial push to use gas in the country. South Africa’s policy community keeps emphasising the importance of regional trade between SADC. The main drivers include significant offshore natural gas finds in northern Mozambique, particularly in the Rovuma Basin and Namibian Kudu gas fields. Botswana also has coal bed methane gas, a form of natural gas extracted from coal beds.

Interestingly, these developments are occurring during challenging major shifts in the global LNG market. Traditional buyers, such as Japan, are reducing their LNG imports due to their plans to restart their nuclear reactors. Moreover, countries such as Australia and the USA are starting to increase their capacity to export LNG through various infrastructure developments. Thus, the current perception is that a global supply glut of LNG is expected, with reorientation of traditional buyers and sellers. Furthermore, LNG is also increasingly being perceived as the new “oil” commodity, not only because oil is undergoing uncertainty, but also LNG is becoming easier to ship through advances in liquefaction technologies.

All this will make the South African gas policy and market developments interesting ones to follow.

Blanche Ting is currently a doctoral researcher based at the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) and a member of the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex. Her research is focused on South Africa’s electricity system, with case studies on Independent Power Producers (IPPs), namely gas, renewable and coal and the implications on the dominant state owned monopoly of Eskom. She holds two Masters degrees in Climate Change and Development from the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), UK as a Mandela-Sussex Scholar (2011) and a Masters in Bioprocess Engineering from the University of Cape Town (2004). Her interests are energy transitions in resource base economies, particularly in Africa and Latin America.

Follow Sussex Energy Group Facebooktwitterlinkedin
Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in Fossil fuels

Makerspaces: Creating inclusive spaces for sustainable innovations

Making stuff is all the rage these days. But how does sustainable development fit into this enthusiasm?

The White House is celebrating a Week of Making from June 16-23 2016 after hosting its first Maker Faire in 2014 to spark a “grassroots renaissance in American making and manufacturing”. The hope is that by exposing people to design and fabrication skills it will “unleash a new era of jobs and entrepreneurialism in manufacturing and transform industries”. This follows the first ever EU Institutional Maker Faire, European Maker week, which ran from 30 May 2016 to 5 June to celebrate “makers and innovators from all over Europe”. The 400 events across the continent ranged from workshops on 3D printing in Italy to learning how to use a machine to do controlled cutting of hard materials, like composite or wood, in Limerick, Ireland. In February this year, there were also government-supported events to celebrate making in India. The maker movement is both mainstreaming and globalising.

Sign with workshop written on it.

Credit: Nathan Oxley, STEPS Centre.

Read the rest of the blog.

 

Follow Sussex Energy Group Facebooktwitterlinkedin
Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in CIED, Community Energy, renewables

Rethinking energy’s impact on society in Bangladesh and beyond

On the 4th of April 2016, Bangladeshi police opened fire on protesters, killing four people, including a 37-year-old salt cultivator, from the remote village of Gandamara in the district of Chittagong, Bangladesh. Around another 100 villagers were also injured by the approximately 700 rounds fired by the police. They had joined 500 other villagers demonstrating against the planned construction of a large (1320 MW) Chinese financed coal-fired power plant to be built at Banshkhali on coastal farming land.

People speaking at protests a month later in May said that the police were still threatening and harassing Banshkhali people with arrests and detention, with people were now unable to leave their village out of fear. The loss of life doesn’t yet seem to have affected the Government’s efforts to continue supporting the construction of the plant.

These protests are not a new phenomenon in Bangladesh. Three people were shot dead by paramilitary forces when 5000 people congregated to protest against an open-pit coal mine in the district of Phulbari in the north of Bangladesh in 2006, a decade before the 2016 demonstration. Now a globally renowned people’s movement, the incident resulted in a ban on mining in Phulbari, but the struggle has not ended. GCM Resources (formerly Asia Energy Corporation), a London-based company, which is invested in the mining operations, has continued to pile up pressure on the Bangladesh Government, which is now reviewing the plans. A GCM Resources statement says it’s awaiting government approval to begin mining in Phulbari.

Protestors standing with a banner saying no open-pit mining in Bangladesh.

Protestors outside the AGM of GCM Resources in 2012. The company is awaiting Bangladeshi government approval to develop an open-pit coal mine in the district of Phulbari, Bangladesh. Credit: Global Justice Now (CC BY 2.0).

Read more ›

Follow Sussex Energy Group Facebooktwitterlinkedin
Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Fossil fuels

Follow Sussex Energy Group on Twitter

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the individual authors and do not represent Sussex Energy Group.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 102 other subscribers.

Archives

Subscribe to Sussex Energy Group's quarterly newsletter