Scrapping the German Renewable Energy Act?

When the German Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation (EFI)  released its annual report to the German Chancellor Merkel a couple of weeks ago, two of the 260 pages caught most of the attention of the media. Two pages which presented the conclusion that the German Renewable Energies Act (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz, short: EEG) with its feed-in tariffs had no innovation and no climate impact. Therefore the Commission concluded the Act should be abolished. A finding that came as quite a surprise to us, as it was contrary to our own research findings. Various renewable industry associations were quick in rejecting these claims. After carefully scrutinising the analysis we came to the conclusion we also disagree with the recommendation of the commission. While there are good reasons for re-thinking and revising the EEG in its current form, we argue that this should be done based on a balanced view of what the instrument has achieved to date.

So, together with several German and European experts on renewables policy and innovation we drafted an expert statement which combines our various findings on the positive impact of the German Renewable Energies Act (EEG) on innovation and climate protection. This statement has now been translated into English, and provides an overview of the current evidence on these issues, which may also help inform policy makers in the UK and other countries. It concludes that:

  1.  The EEG has definitely generated innovation effects and supported the transformation of the German energy system.
  2. The conclusion that the EEG has no effect as a climate policy cannot be upheld.

This week we may find out how far policy makers and civil servants in the German government have taken the plurality of voices on board when revising the EEG, as Merkel’s Cabinet is envisaged to adopt Minister Gabriel’s proposal for the EEG 2.0 this April 8, 2014, thereby setting the stage for the fate of the German Energiewende and its global knock-on effects.

By Florian Kern and Karoline Rogge, Sussex Energy Group, SPRU, University of Sussex

 

Expert statement on the impact of the German Renewable Energies Act (EEG) on innovation and climate protection

In response to the annual report of the “Expert Commission Research and Innovation” to the German Chancellor

1. Context and significance of the EEG

Renewable energies play a decisive role in the transformation of the energy system. A successful transformation will essentially depend on innovations being triggered and diffused. Besides protecting the climate, natural resources and the environment, it is therefore a declared goal of the German Renewable Energies Act (EEG) to promote the further development of technologies used to generate electricity from renewable energy sources. The actual innovation effect of this instrument is questioned from time to time. The latest report by the Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation (EFI) concludes that “the EEG is neither a cost efficient instrument for climate protection, nor does it seem to have a measurable impact on innovation”. The EFI therefore does not see any justification for continuing the EEG.

Prompted by the current discussion, the authors of this statement decided to pool their findings from many years of research into the EEG’s environmental and innovation impacts, documented in numerous publications, in order to contribute to the discussion about the impact of the EEG in a condensed but fact-based and differentiated form. The undersigned conclude that the EEG has definitely generated innovation effects and supported the transformation of the energy system.

2. What is innovation and how can it be measured?

First of all, it should be noted that innovations can be defined as genuinely novel as well as significantly improved products, services and processes already on the market, which are not necessarily based on patented know-how. This definition implies that innovation should be measured by a variety of indicators. Alongside patents, conventional indicators include, e.g., the number of new products launched onto the market or products whose quality has improved; improved price/ performance; but also innovative start-ups and investments in research and development. Hence, the comprehensive analysis and assessment of a policy instrument’s impact on innovation should be based on a multitude of indicators and therefore on different data collection methods, because single indicators can only capture partial aspects of innovation – and some of these only very indirectly.

When analyzing the innovation impact of a policy instrument such as the German Renewable Energies Act, it is also important to bear in mind that innovations always depend on the interaction of different factors: Public funding of research and development but also increasing external pressure to act – which innovations should alleviate – play a role as do scientific progress, demand potentials, changes in consumer preferences and policy measures promoting demand, such as the EEG. Accordingly, the innovation impacts of individual instruments have to be embedded in this overall context and assessed from a systemic point of view.

3. The innovation impact of the EEG

Patent figures are frequently used to illustrate innovation dynamics and potential of future technical performance and market dynamics. There has been a marked, disproportionate increase in patent applications for renewable energy technologies over the last few years. Different studies reveal a clear positive correlation between patent development and the demand for renewable energies. The EEG has without doubt made a major contribution to increasing this demand in Germany – as have similar instruments in other countries – and thus to the accelerated diffusion of renewable energy technologies. For instance, almost 100% of photovoltaic and 85% of wind energy capacities in the EU are based on feed-in tariffs.

Technological innovations

Similarly, if innovation is indicated by the price and/or performance of a technology, a very positive picture results with regard to innovation dynamics. In the wind power sector, the average effect of wind turbines more than doubled from 1100 kW to 2600 kW between 2000 and 2013 according to data from German wind power associations. This increase was driven by technical innovations and enables a much larger amount of electricity to be generated per turbine. In photovoltaics, solar systems now cost one third of what they did 7 years ago, and there has been a simultaneous huge increase in their conversion efficiency as well. Our results show that economies of scale and learning effects made possible due to increased demand have made a major contribution to these changes. Our case study results indicate that even market newcomers profit from the specific conditions of fixed feed-in payments due to increased investor interest. Furthermore, the market dynamics triggered by the EEG has enabled companies to invest in process innovations and innovative manufacturing equipment, which has a positive impact on technologies’ costs and efficiency. Beyond innovations in the technologies it directly promotes, the EEG has also triggered extensive innovative activities in complementary technologies such as energy storage systems, inverters, forecast software and grid technology. In particular, there is considerable pressure for innovations in various grid system components. This pressure is being exerted by the requirements of a power sector increasingly based on renewable energies; a situation which has come about due to expansion of renewable electricity generation induced by the EEG.

Organizational and institutional innovations

The innovation impacts are not just of a technical nature, but also relate to organizational and institutional innovations in other fields, e.g. the financial sector. In the public debate, increasing importance is given to the challenge of financing the energy transition, which requires innovative solutions. Due to the EEG and comparable feed-in systems in other European countries, new actors – e.g. small cooperatives, private homeowners, farmers, insurance companies and pension funds – could be attracted which has provide considerable amounts of capital. The costs of the energy transformation can be significantly reduced thanks to EEG’s stable and long-term investment horizon and these actors requiring only low rates of return. The interaction of direct and indirect, technical and organizational innovations is what constitutes a system innovation which enables the transformation of the energy generation system into one based on renewable energies.

International innovation impact

Another aspect to be considered when analyzing the EEG’s innovation impact is that innovations are increasingly taking place in international networks and changing global value chains. The EEG and comparable policy instruments have also triggered internationally relevant innovations. There have been a lot of reports in the media about rivals from Asia, who also benefit from the EEG and who have recently developed into competitors of Germany’s solar cell manufacturers. The development of the relevant capacities in Asia has been made possible by equipment being imported from Europe, into which European know-how and experiences had been integrated. Over time, this has not only contributed to declining costs and prices of the technologies in Europe, but has simultaneously sparked innovations, e.g. in manufacturing equipment. Even more significant globally is that the enormously reduced costs of renewable energy technologies have facilitated their application in developing and newly industrializing countries and that these countries are now pursuing entirely new strategies in the expansion of their electricity systems. It is now foreseeable that there will be a shift in the market dynamics in these countries. For instance, between 2010 and 2012, about three quarters of new wind power capacity were installed outside the EU and about half in Asia, which means additional export markets and, thus, that innovation incentives will follow. The EEG has played a role in triggering these self-reinforcing feedback processes. It could be criticized that other countries benefit from this innovation to a considerable extent, while the costs of the EEG are incurred in Germany. This criticism does not address the EEG’s innovation impact, however, but rather the international distribution of its costs – Germany could claim that it is taking on a global responsibility by bearing the investment costs which trigger these innovations.

4. The contribution of the EEG to climate protection

Overall, our scientific findings show that the policy has had a positive impact on innovation on a broad scale. In addition to this, however, there is the question whether the EEG also benefits climate protection or whether it does not bring about any additional CO2 reductions due to the EU’s emission trading scheme’s cap on EU-wide CO2 emissions. The argument that the EEG does not result in any additional CO2 reduction ignores the fact that the targets set for emissions trading and renewable energies were coordinated with each other within the EU’s 2020 integrated climate and energy package. The different policy targets of emissions trading and supporting renewable energies were deliberately weighed up by the policy makers. While the main target of the emissions trading scheme is to minimize the short-term costs of avoiding CO2 emissions, the policy measures supporting renewable energies aim at, and, as shown above, achieve the cost reduction and development of technologies which are not “near market” to start with. The EEG has no effect on climate protection within the EU only if renewable energies exceed their targets and, at the same time, the saved emissions are not “banked” for future trading periods and if future emission targets are not influenced by the success of previous emission reductions and technology developments or banking behavior. According to the most recent evaluations of the EU Commission, however, the expansion of renewable energies is currently proceeding almost exactly in line with the set targets and the current debate about the EU’s 2030 targets shows the significance of the previous success from applying new technologies when discussing the targets. In addition, the EEG-induced cost reductions – as described above – also contribute to the increased diffusion of renewable energy technologies outside Europe and, thus, to global climate protection. The conclusion that the EEG has no effect as a climate policy therefore cannot be upheld.

5. Implications for the revision of the EEG

Based on our findings, it can be stated that the EEG does have a positive impact on innovation. It is important to note that there are direct but also indirect effects, some of which emerge at global level and which cannot be captured by studies based on individual technologies, but which our findings indicate play a key role when evaluating innovation effects. However, this positive conclusion does not imply that we believe there is no need to change the EEG. The positive experiences made should be taken into account during the forthcoming amendment of this policy tool and when aiming to increase the incentives for innovations. We regard the amendment of the EEG as only one important component in the transformation of the energy sector: Scientists agree that the innovations which are essential to transform the energy system are most effectively promoted by combining demand- and supply-side measures in a balanced policy mix. As clearly shown by our empirical results, these include the formulation of credible medium- and long-term targets for renewable energies in terms of a mission-oriented innovation policy. Putting these ambitious targets for renewable energy technologies into practice by using different policy instruments to promote supply and demand and embedding them in the specific given context is what makes an innovation-oriented policy successful – hardly a surprising result from the perspective of systemic innovation research.

Researchers supporting this statement

This statement brings together the expertise of the following undersigned specialists:

  • Dr. Mario Ragwitz, Prof. Dr. Rainer Walz (Fraunhofer Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung (ISI), Karlsruhe)
  • Prof. Dr. Volker Hoffmann, Dr. Tobias Schmidt (ETH Zürich)
  • Prof. Dr. Karsten Neuhoff (Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, DIW Berlin)
  • Dr. Florian Kern, Dr. Karoline Rogge* (SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex (*and Fraunhofer ISI))
  • Prof. Dr. Uwe Cantner, PD Dr. Holger Graf (Friedrich Schiller Universität, Jena)
  • Prof. Dr. Joachim Schleich (Grenoble Ecole de Management sowie Fraunhofer ISI)
  • Prof. Dr. Rolf Wüstenhagen (Institut für Wirtschaft und Ökologie, Universität St. Gallen)
  • Dr. Klaus Jacob (Forschungszentrum für Umweltpolitik (FFU), FU Berlin)
  • Prof. Dr. Bernhard Truffer (CIRUS, EAWAG Dübendorf)
  • Univ. Prof. Dr. Reinhard Haas (Energy Economics Group, TU Wien)
  • Prof. Dr. Marko Hekkert, Dr. Simona Negro (Copernicus Institute, University of Utrecht)
  • Prof. Dr. Staffan Jacobsson (Chalmers University, Göteborg)
  • Prof. Dr. Volkmar Lauber (Universität Salzburg)
Follow Sussex Energy Group Facebooktwitterlinkedin
Tagged with: , , , , , , ,
Posted in All Posts, CIED

Energy surplus: the economy blind spot?

North Sea oil rig

The special importance of energy has tended to be ignored or downplayed by conventional economists although it has recently become a political hot potato in the UK and elsewhere. What is also largely ignored is the importance of a large energy surplus to the health and strength of an economy that in turn impacts on our general standard of living.

Energy surplus is a simple concept – it’s the calculation of net energy output. In other words: the energy generated less the energy expended required in order to acquire it.  Energy inputs include the energy embodied in operating equipment and buildings and the energy consumed by them. If you are into metrics the calculation to compare different energy supply technologies is the ratio of energy output to the energy inputs. This is called the energy return on energy invested; EROI or EROEI.

Many countries have long enjoyed the large energy surplus provided by fossil fuels. This has enabled economies to diversify and become ever more sophisticated since the levels of energy surplus have been greatly in excess of that needed to satisfy basic human needs. In order to maintain such an economy, and therefore standard of living, then that large energy surplus needs to be maintained. This is achieved either by sources that produce a large energy surplus or considerable amounts of sources with a lower energy surplus.

There are signs however that the large energy surplus that has been enjoyed in the past may be on the decline. This is mostly driven by a decline in the EROI for oil and gas. Global production of oil and gas was 30:1 in the 1990s but in 2006 this had fallen to 18:1 (Gagnon, Hall, & Brinker, 2009). And with oil and gas still making up the majority of our global primary energy supply, 52.8% in 2011 – virtually unchanged since 1973 (IEA, 2013), this decline is important.

It’s fairly easy to understand that no life form can survive for long while energy inputs exceed the energy output. What appears to be harder to realise is that trends in energy surplus also have serious implications for the economy.

A decline in energy surplus occurs for the following reasons:

  • increased energy input expenditure for the same level of energy output
  • reducing energy output for the same level of energy input
  • or both of the above

So what is the explanation for the fall in EROI for global oil and gas? There are two main reasons: First of all an increasing proportion of conventional sources of oil and gas are passing their peak and are therefore not producing as much output as before. And secondly, there is an increasing proportion of unconventional oil and gas exploitation i.e. tar sands, deep-water oil fields, shale gas.  Unconventional oil and gas require greater capital expenditure (inputs) than conventional sources. Both these reasons can be summarised as an increasing toil for oil and gas. “Toil for Oil” was part of the title of in a Financial Times article (Lewis, 2013) reporting on the 2013 IEA World Energy Outlook report. The article specifically discusses the rapid increase recently in capital expenditure by the oil and gas industry.

And what of renewables? With the exception of hydro all renewable supply technologies have EROI figures that are lower than conventional fossil fuels. Technology improvements will of course go some way to narrowing the gap with oil and gas, especially as the proportion of unconventional sources continues to increase. But renewables are extremely site specific, are not as versatile, e.g. generating electricity only, and there is also the intermittency problem in the case of wind and solar. Addressing intermittency would reduce EROI since this would require greater energy inputs. It can also be expected that over time the marginal extra unit of wind and solar will have a lower EROI through the “best first” principle i.e. the best sites will be exploited first.

Note that those capital energy inputs are manufactured and supplied to the energy sector by the industrial economy. Increasing toil for energy of any kind to maintain a level of energy output means a crowding out of the ability of the economy to deliver other activities. It could ultimately lead to a contraction of the economy i.e. recession.

Ignoring the trends in energy surplus is therefore dangerous and can lead to failures in energy policy and planning. Innovations and technological improvements will go some way to try to halt or reverse this decline especially if a completely new abundant energy source is discovered. But will human creativity save the day or will energy resource limits bite and more importantly than this: When?

Claire Louise Carter is a PhD student at the Sussex Energy Group in SPRU at the University of Sussex.

References:

Gagnon, N., Hall, C. A. S., & Brinker, L. (2009). A Preliminary Investigation of Energy Return on Energy Investment for Global Oil and Gas Production. Energies, 2(3), 490–503. doi:10.3390/en20300490

IEA. (2013). Key World Energy Statistics 2013.

Lewis, M. (2013, November 25). Toil for oil means industry sums do not add up. Financial Times. Retrieved from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5e923e3a-51d3-11e3-8c42-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz2mJM8b39E

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

Siemens building offshore wind manufacturing plant in Hull is good news for DECC and UK’s renewable energy sector

The recent announcement by Siemens to build a new manufacturing plant for offshore wind turbines in the UK is good news for the renewable energy sector in the UK and for DECC. By investing £160 million in wind turbine production and installation facilities in Yorkshire, Siemens will be creating more than 1,000 new jobs in the Hull area. While a number of recent cancellations of large offshore wind farms have taken place, the investment shows that Siemens believes in the policies put forward by DECC to stimulate the growth of offshore wind. The UK already is the biggest market for offshore wind worldwide and the project pipeline is significant with the government’s 2011 Renewable Energy Roadmap expecting to have an installed capacity of 18GW by 2020 and 40 GW by 2030.

This latest announcement indicates that the offshore wind industry is serious about their commitment to increase UK content for future offshore wind farms. In February 2012 the Offshore Wind Developers Forum, a network of developers aimed at discussing common problems facing the industry which was set up by the Crown Estate in 2010 and was jointly chaired by the Minister for Energy and Climate Change and the CEO of ScottishPower, had announced an ambition of 50% UK content for future offshore wind farms. The Forum has now been replaced by a Offshore Wind Industry Council (OWIC). Our research on offshore wind developments in the UK showed that this was a significant strategic move by the sector as the Forum recognised that this was a crucial issue for politicians. Insiders acknowledged that without creating jobs in the UK, the government’s commitment to subsidise offshore wind development would be diminished. As one interviewee put it: “I think it will be a real struggle for [offshore wind] to survive politically if it doesn’t increase its UK content” (Kern, Smith et al 2014 (2014). “From laggard to leader: Explaining offshore wind developments in the UK.” Energy Policy).

The latest announcement by Siemens really illustrates one of our key findings: that the commitment to offshore wind in the UK is driven by a close alignment of economic and political interests of key incumbent actors (incl. DECC, the Crown Estate, large energy companies and utilities as well as manufacturers such as Siemens) which has led to the rapid deployment of offshore wind making the UK the world leader.

The move offshore is circumventing anti-onshore wind protest in the short term and helps meeting the EU 2020 renewables targets in the medium term but at potentially high economic and political costs when the further deployment adds up to a significant impact on electricity bills. However, the announcement by Siemens also hints at the growth and job creation prospects of offshore wind which suggests that the proactive strategy of DECC and the Crown Estate, the Energy Technology Institute and others who are putting significant public resources into stimulating offshore wind may pay off.

Dr Florian Kern, Co-Director Sussex Energy Group, SPRU-Science and Technology Policy Research

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

Budget 2014: short-term gains for business, bad news for the environment

By Jim Watson, Research Director, UK Energy Research Centre and  Professor of Energy Policy, Sussex Energy Group in SPRU, University of Sussex

This post originally appeared on  The Conversation

The big energy policy headline in the budget was well trailed. As expected, the level of the UK’s carbon tax on electricity generation will be frozen from 2016/17 until the end of this decade. Conceived in response to lobbying by energy intensive industries and Labour’s price freeze policy, this change is part of a package that the government claims will save energy consumers up to £7bn.

The tax, known as the Carbon Price Floor, was implemented to compensate for the persistently low price of carbon in the European emissions trading scheme. Rather than increasing as planned, it will be capped at £18 per tonne of CO2. This will cost the government £1.8bn in lost revenue between 2016/17 and 2018/19.

Because this measure will make electricity cheaper than it would have been, electricity demand is expect to increase by 3-4%. Emissions may also rise too as a result. The compensation package for energy intensive industries that are liable to pay this tax will be extended to the end of the decade, and additional compensation will be available for these industries to offset the costs of renewable energy support policies.

Economics over environment

This freeze is unwelcome. It weakens the basic incentive for power generators to switch away from the use of carbon intensive fuels (particularly coal) towards lower carbon options such as gas, renewables and nuclear power. The only exception is a new exemption for electricity from efficient combined heat and power plants.

Coal-fired electricity has experienced a revival in the last couple of years at the expense of gas due to low coal prices. This has led to an increase in power sector carbon emissions after many years of decline. From a climate change perspective, it is very important that policies counteract this economic advantage to reduce the risk that coal generation will be locked in for longer than necessary.

But it is also important to remember that the Carbon Price Floor received mixed reactions when it was introduced. Many investors were sceptical, and foresaw the political risks associated with a measure that could be adjusted by the chancellor each year. They seem to have been vindicated. Its usefulness as a signal for new investment in low carbon technologies was already questionable – and now it is significantly weaker.

Keeping emissions reductions on track

To ensure emissions reductions remain on track, other measures may be necessary. The long term contracts for new sources of low carbon generation introduced by the Energy Act 2013 will be even more important. The budget does include positive statements about the government’s commitment to renewable energy through these contracts.

In addition to this, further details of the “capacity mechanism” were published on budget day. This is a complex mechanism designed to support new flexible generation to help balance supply and demand for electricity. The duration of capacity mechanism contracts for new gas-fired plants has been increased to 15 years.

This may help to improve confidence among investors who have put plans on hold because of poor economics. But the mechanism can also support existing coal plants, some of which could be awarded three-year contracts to pay for refurbishment. This adds to concerns that coal generation (and wider power sector emissions) will not be reduced quickly enough.

The demand side of energy policy was notable by its absence from the budget. A more comprehensive response to high energy bills would have included a greater emphasis on energy efficiency. This is especially the case for households and smaller companies that have limited resources to invest. While the government has an ambitious energy efficiency strategy that aims to avoid the need for 22 power stations by 2020, progress has been mixed.

The Secretary of State for energy Ed Davey MP recently admitted that the uptake of the flagship Green Deal policy had been “disappointing”. Some of the £1.8bn the government will forego as a result of the Carbon Price Floor freeze could have been used to strengthen energy efficiency programmes.

While the pressure to relieve the impact of high energy prices is understandable, this budget increased the risks that the UK’s carbon targets will not be met. It also missed an opportunity to improve energy efficiency, and to insulate energy consumers against high prices in future.

The UK Energy Research Centre is funded by three Research Councils: NERC, EPSRC and ESRC.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.

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

Scottish independence debate shifts to energy issues, (again)

Inverness airport (2)

Àrd-amas airson lùtha”: “Ambitious about energy”. This is the message that greets arriving passengers at Inverness Airport in the highlands of Scotland. The message occupies an entire wall of the main lounge and also explains, “the world’s best resources for wind, wave, and tidal power are here in the highlands and islands”. Observations regarding the ironies of sustainability-based salutations occupying walls of airports to be ogled by frequent flyers aside, these lines are worthy of reflection. For a start, witnessing such a domineering advert whilst the newspaper under your arm is stuffed with stories recounting the inevitable return of North Sea Oil and gas as the hot topic of the Scottish Independence debate, at least provided a timely reminder of the defining role energy policy has played – and continues to play, in the back-and-forth over the potential break up of a United Kingdom.

North Sea oil rig

As Ronald Kowalski discusses, in 1974  there was a resurgence of Scottish national identity, bolstered by the fact that the football team were performing well in the World Cup competition in West Germany. More powerful than this though, was the steep decline of the coal and steel industry between 1970-1974 orchestrated by the Heath Government. This period of destabilisation which had profound socio-economic ramifications for the East end of Glasgow – consequences still felt today, was met with protests and work-ins against the closures.

This drove many to search for political alternatives to policies coordinated from Westminster. Two years before, the Scottish National Party (SNP) oriented itself around a simple concept:  “It’s Scotland’s Oil”. This built on strong sentiments that financial flows generated from the oil-exploitation of the North Sea appeared to bypass several latitudinous degrees as they headed southward. The 1973 oil crisis made the North Sea Oil issue even more significant.

In the 1970 general election the SNP polled just 11.5% of the vote. By 1974, this had risen to 30.4% of the vote. BP had discovered the ‘Giant forties’ oil field in the North Sea and a rush for the ‘Black Gold’ was spurred by the Oil Crisis of 1973. Revealed decades later by a Freedom of Information (FoI) request made in 2005, was that the known extent of Oil and Gas in the North Sea, and the vastness of revenues that could be generated from exploiting these resources, were deliberately hushed up. It sounds like the stuff of wild conspiracy, but the originally classified documentation known as the McCrone Report is now freely available.

The 19-page document outlined that potential revenues of North Sea Oil could be vast. The consequences of this were also outlined, the report stating that an independent Scotland in control of these assets could make a Scottish currency the strongest in Europe on par with Norway, Scotland could be as rich as Switzerland, and would be in a position to lend to England, a situation it was claimed, “could last for a very long time”. The McCrone report was classified and not seen for decades. Given the rise of Scottish Independence, the publishing of the report could easily have transformed the entire history of the UK. Independence would have been a far more attractive and feasible prospect. The true extent of North Sea Oil and gas reserves were not admitted until later, by which time the fervour for independence had died down.

Bridge et al in an Energy Policy article on the ‘Geographies of Energy transition’, outline that “…the territorialisation of the UK is an unsettled project that is on-going and contested” (Bridge et al, 2013: 336). In recent weeks as the referendum on Scottish independence approaches, North Sea Oil has once again provided the terrain for some of the more bitter disputes between the Alex Salmond-led SNP and the Westminster Coalition. Recent plans have been announced to ‘fast-track’ drilling for the remaining supplies of North Sea Oil. Salmond has outlined the creation of a  ‘Norwegian style’ approach to North Sea resources in an independent Scotland, including an ‘Oil Fund’, where 10% of revenues are set aside for future generations, which could total around £10 billion pounds a year for the remaining decades of production. David Cameron however, argued that given the unstable and fluctuating nature of Oil Markets, remaining resources could be better managed by the “broad shoulders” of a United Kingdom. These announcements were made within a few miles of one another in Aberdeenshire, the heartland of the UK’s oil industry.

Scottish wind farm_tcm9-204219 (2)

Then there is the environmental issue. As Andy Rowell points out, it may be that carbon reserves could increasingly be seen as liabilities rather than assets, as the climate change issue becomes increasingly a more serious one. Thus, he argues, North Sea Oil could become a ‘stranded asset’. However, there is another side to the SNP energy strategy. They have committed to discontinuing nuclear power in Scotland which may prove challenging.  This strong direction has however created new innovative drives on the renewables front, with an ambition of 100% renewables by 2020. Scotland appears to be charging ahead with this aim, with 40% of electricity consumption met by the renewables sector in 2012. This was “significantly higher” than the rest of the UK, and anyone that has holidayed in Scotland will be aware of the immense availability and potential for the development of wind energy.

Taking a ‘Varieties of capitalism’ approach of Soskice and Hall (2001) the devolved Scottish Government seems to be taking a more ‘coordinated’ approach regarding policy implementation, especially in relation to its low carbon ambitions. Policy direction has been articulated in an attempt to make Scotland the “Saudi Arabia of renewables.” This entails being industry leaders in wind, wave and tidal, and a variety of projects, ‘test labs’ and innovation hubs have emerged to meet this aim.

It’s been a while coming, but once again energy dominates the Scottish independence debate in a variety of ways. What remains to be seen is whether Scotland continues to be “ambitious” about a low carbon transition, or whether important funds are devoted to the increasing expenses of draining the “black gold” to its last drop.

Dr Phillip Johnstone is a Research Fellow at  the Sussex Energy Group in SPRU at the University of Sussex.

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

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 113 other subscribers.

Archives

Subscribe to Sussex Energy Group's quarterly newsletter