Advertisement

QoL and Final Energy Consumption with Other Policy Targets

  • Reza NadimiEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter utilizes the results of previous chapter, to characterize three general energy policies in line with global energy strategy. Global energy strategy (GES) is a manner to find a balance between positive and negative impacts of energy on societies, especially their quality of life (QoL). This chapter proposes a framework to consider a decent GES regarding acceptable QoL. The core of the framework is a “Trade-off Analysis” in which the five variables including final energy consumption, QoL, poverty, health, and CO2 emissions are analyzed together. Three energy policies resulted from the “Trade-off Analysis” are eco-sufficiency, eco-efficiency, and energy poverty. The first two energy policies correspond with developed and developing countries respectively, while energy poverty policy has a close similarity with pre-developing countries. To implement these three energy policies in the form of global energy strategy, strong motivations are required especially in case of developed countries. Because the eco-sufficiency idea is to reduce energy consumption beyond of energy reduction of input per unit of output which is the idea of eco-efficiency. According to the results, mitigation of CO2 emissions and natural energy resource’s saving are two factors with a higher priority to encourage developed countries to reduce energy consumption. In case of developing countries, in addition to the two previous factors, the poverty and QoL are next priorities. For pre-developing countries the first priority to supply sufficient energy is poverty reduction, health and QoL improvement. In other words, mitigation of CO2 emissions and maintaining natural energy resource have the lowest priority for pre-developing countries, because according to the fitted sigmoid function, a little amount of energy supply among pre-developing countries will significantly increase their QoL. Generally, the results of this chapter imply that to conduct a suitable global energy strategy, the priority of influential factors should be considered. This chapter proposes five macro-factors (final energy consumption, QoL, poverty, health, and CO2 emissions) to decide about global energy strategy. By considering these five factors as well as population growth, three aforementioned energy policies are extracted correspond with three types of countries.                                                                                                        

Keywords

Final energy consumption Quality of life modeling Eco-sufficiency Eco-efficiency Energy poverty reduction 

Bibliography

  1. 1.
    E.A. Rosa, G.E. Machlis, K.M. Keating, Energy and society. Annu. Rev. Sociol. JSTOR 14, 149–172 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A.L. Ferriss, A theory of social structure and the quality of life, Appl. Res. Qual. Life 117–123 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    GEA, Global Energy Assessments (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Dlugokencky, P. Tans, Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (NOAA/ESRL, 2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Nadimi, Quality of life modelling in terms of energy consumption, in International Association for Energy Economics (IAEE) (Singapore, 2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Z. Wang, W. He, B. Wang, Performance and reduction potential of energy and CO2 emissions among the APEC’s members with considering the return to scale. Energy (In Press, Accepted Manuscript, 2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Nadimi, K. Tokimatsu, K. Yoshikawa, Sustainable energy policy options in the presence of quality of life, poverty, and CO2 emission. Energy Procedia 142, 2959–2964 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Y. Wang, The analysis of the impacts of energy consumption on environment and public health in China. Energy 35, 4473–4479 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    K.R. Smith, H. Frumkin, K. Balakrishnan, C.D. Butler, Z.A. Chafe, I. Fairlie, P. Kinney, T. Kjellstrom, D.L. Mauzerall, T.E. McKone, A.J. McMichael, M. Schneider, Energy and human health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 34, 159–188 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. McCollum, L.G. Echeverri, K. Riahi, S. Parkinson, SDG 7 ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all (International Council for Science, Paris, 2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Action, Poor People’s Energy Outlook 2010 (Rugby, UK, 2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.E. Stiglitz, A. Sen, J.-P. Fitoussi, Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    T. Burchardt, R. Hick, Inequality and the Capability Approach (Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London, 2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    IEA, Worldwide Engagement for Sustainable Energy Strategies (International Energy Agency, 2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. Pasten, J.C. Santamarina, Energy and quality of life. Energy Policy 49, 468–476 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    U. Nations, Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. sustainabledevelopment.un.org (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Nadimi, K. Tokimatsu, Energy use analysis in the presence of quality of life, poverty, health. Energy 19, 657–663 (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Nadimi, K. Tokimatsu, Modeling of quality of life in terms of energy and electricity consumption. Appl. Energy 212, 1282–1294 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Ross, A First Course in Probability, 8 edn. (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2010), pp. 58–114Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    B.C. Choi, Population attributable fraction: comparison of two mathematical procedures to estimate the annual attributable number of deaths. Choi Epidemiol. Perspect. Innov. 1–8 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    The World Health Report 2002 (WHO, 2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Coudouel, J.S. Hentschel, Q.T. Wodon, Poverty Measurement and Analysis (The World Bank, Washington D.C., 2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    D.C. Montgomery, Design and analysis of experiments, 5 edn. (Wiley, 2001), p. 639Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    IEA, International Energy Agency (2016). [Online]. Available http://www.iea.org/statistics
  25. 25.
    W. H. O. (WHO), Health statistics and information systems. WHO (2017). [Online]. Available http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/en/
  26. 26.
    World Bank Open Data (2016). [Online]Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    W. H. Organization, Global health risks: mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks. WHO (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    A.D. Sagar, Alleviating energy poverty for the world’s poor. Energy Policy 33, 1367–1372 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    J. Zinck Thellufsen, H. Lund, Roles of local and national energy systems in the integration of renewable energy. Appl. Energy 183, 419–429 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    MHPS, Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems (2018). [Online]. Available https://www.mhps.com/products/igcc/
  31. 31.
    R. Hoya, C. Fushimi, Thermal efficiency of advanced integrated coal gasification combined cycle power generation systems with low-temperature gasifier, gas cleaning and CO2 capturing units. Fuel Process. Technol. 164, 80–91 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    P.-M. Boulanger, Three strategies for sustainable consumption. S.A.P.I.EN.S 3(2) (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    I. Spectrum, Japan’s Isogo Power Plant burnishes clean coal’s credentials. J-Power (2018). [Online]. Available https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/clean-coal/japans-isogo-power-plant-burnishes-clean-coals-credentials
  35. 35.
    J. Edmonds, M. Wise, J. Dooley, S. Kim, S. Smith, P. Runci, L. Clarke, E. Malone, G. Stokes, Global Energy Technology Strategy Addressing Climate Change Phase 2 (Battelle Memorial Institute, 2007)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    R. Schubert, J. Blasch, K. Hoffmann, Environmental protection, energy policy and poverty reduction—synergies of an integrated approach. IED Working Paper 1 (2007)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    M. Grubb, Communication energy efficiency and economic fallacies. Energy Policy 18, 783–785 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    B. Alcott, The sufficiency strategy: would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact? Ecol. Econ. 64, 770–786 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    J.D. Edgerton, L.W. Roberts, S.V. Below, Education and quality of life, in Handbook of Social Indicators and Quality of Life Research (Springer Netherlands, 2011), pp. 265–296Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tokyo Institute of TechnologyTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations