Abstract
This is the first editorial written by me in 2016 and likely to be one of the last. E&E now belongs to SAGE Publishers and readers as well as prospective authors are invited to familiarise themselves with new conditions and procedures (eae.sagepub.com; https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/energy-environment/journal202462).
Taking into account my long responsibility for E&E and advancing age, SAGE, with my full support, we are now looking for a new editor. Suggestions and offers are welcome. The politics of energy are unlikely to calm down in the near future. Geopolitics alone will make sure of this, though turbulence will be strongly supported (and confused) by ambitious agendas for technological and regulatory change, agendas that may well be driven increasingly by security rather than environmental concerns.
I have been editor of E&E since the mid-1990s when David Everest handed the journal over to me (an E&E author on car emissions, acid rain and global warming) because of ill health. I could not have done this job without invaluable help of assistants: Cally Barker, Linda Love, Louise Purcell and now Cheryl Merritt. I accepted the editorship without any experience shortly after I had been appointed Reader in Environmental Management in the Geography Department at the University of Hull. The Department and University must also be thanked for the considerable support given to E&E which fortunately continues.
I moved to Hull and E&E after having been a Senior Research Fellow at the Science Policy Unit at Sussex University and made this move after I had become increasingly ‘sceptical’ of environmental ideology (and hence some ‘green’ energy policy based on belief in planetary catastrophe) and did so on the basis of my own research experiences, as well as interest in natural science and politics. Becoming the editor of E&E included a bias towards publishing, voices critical of the increasingly persuasive ambitions of ‘environmentalists’, not an easy task, however attractive to engineers and investors. I continue noting the astonishing (to me) influence of environmentalist arguments on energy policy – combining fear of apocalypse with promises derived from new technology. There was much to do for bureaucracies who had been persuaded that the planet needed ‘saving’ from the evils of fossil fuels. As the proverbial ‘policy-maker’ they should not escape academic investigation! I do hope that this interdisciplinary and investigative approach can continue, though this may not be easy.
I remain committed to Fuel for Thought at least for this year – time consuming but intellectual rewarding attempt to collect, sort and summarise ‘events’ related to energy decisions. It is meant to encourage a more contextual approach to energy studies and hence counteract the growing specialisations. These range from ‘nudging’ consumers with the help of social sciences to econometric modelling understood only by mathematicians. Much of what I have received recently is done ‘on the cheap’ without genuine ‘field work’ including talking to people, attending conferences and reading widely.
The attractiveness of the environmental theme to energy policy research is well illustrated in this issue.
The first paper is by Nicholas M Odhiambo, Department of Economics, University of South Africa. This is an empirical investigation of into the links between coal consumption and economic growth in one of the largest coal producers and consumers in the world. Employment is seen as an intermittent variable between coal consumption and economic growth – creating a simple trivariate causality model. The author finds that there is a unidirectional causal flow from economic growth to coal consumption – both in the short run and in the long term, but a bidirectional causality between economic growth and employment. It is concluded that for South Africa at least, economic growth does not depend on increased coal use. Coal conservation could be achieved – without necessarily compromising economic growth. Is this a reassuring message to government?
Arif Yurtsev of Department of Economics, Eastern Mediterranean University, North Cyprus reports an economic analysis relating to the cheapest choice of a water heater system operating under seasonal conditions. It applies especially solar water heating. In winter or rainy seasons, it is the choice energy back up during that is critical for its overall cost-effectiveness. In North Cyprus, an solar water heating system, for example, with electricity back up is far superior to using electricity alone, but inferior to heating water with either a liquefied petroleum gas water heater alone, more cost-effective, with or without the inclusion of the social cost of carbon estimates.
Saule Baurzhan, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Turkey and Glenn P. Jenkins Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada also give economic advice relating to solar, which African countries are of course encouraged to install. Their paper ‘An economic appraisal of solar versus combined cycle electricity (CC) generation for African countries that are capital constrained’ rejects the option of investing in solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants for on-grid power generation. A comparison of economic net present value as well as greenhouse gases savings is made for the same amount invested in a combined cycle (CC) thermal power plant. The author shows that economic net present value is negative for solar PV but has a large positive value for CC. In addition, the CC plant would be twice as effective in reducing GHG as the same value of investment in solar PV plant. Even with solar investment costs falling, it would take 9 to 18 years of continuous decline before solar generation technology will become cost-effective for most of Africa.
Fuel for Thought covers the period January to mid-February 2016 and will continue to summarise the geo-political context of energy policy developments in a global context and for selected countries. There is some emphasis on energy-related technological and financial developments. It will report on the implications, especially financial, of the drop in the prices of carbon fuels and especially oil, with specific report on selected countries and industries, all taken from the Financial Times, Time Magazine, The Economist and occasionally, Prospect and Acid News, and a few other publications or blogs crossing my desk or screen. Climate science developments and the energy-related debates (among scientists, less so governments) rereported and deal still primarily CO2 emissions. Nuclear developments are summarised from material received from the industry, as well as the latest messages from opposing ‘camps’ in the climate change/global warming/renewable energy debate and their policy implications.