A resource curse for renewables? Conflict and cooperation in the renewable energy sector

Abstract

a b s t r a c tPrevious studies have shown that fossil energy systems can be a conflict objective, means or cause. This study explores how renewable energy (RE) systems can interact with conflicts and to what extent the risk of different conflicts may change. Renewable resources, in contrast to conventional fossil resources, are more difficult to control in time and space. RE systems depend on exploiting flows rather than extracting stocks, are geographically more evenly distributed, and the energy density is lower. As a consequence, economic and geopolitical incentives for states to engage in conflicts to secure or control RE resources are low. However, increased competition for land increases the risk of local conflicts that involve non-state actors, since it can reduce actor's ecological space. Distribution and use of RE can be designed to have a low risk of interacting with conflicts, but the success of this depends on the technologies implemented and other sustainability policies. Increased dependence on control systems used to manage variable electricity production increase exposure to cyber threats while as small-scale distributed generation reduce incentives to attack the system since such systems are less sensitive to attacks.

Sustainable power density in electricity generation

“…Based on the same data (BP, 2012), this comes to be something around 1 GWh per person [1] which compared with an average 10 MWh consumption of primary energy per year per person, gives another version of the same 100 years time window. This finiteness is much more compelling if it is taken into account that fossil reserves are supposed to be shared not only with the present but also with the future population, which may reclaim its share of fossils for the multitude of needs they are able to satisfy.…”

Energy security in a decarbonised transport sector: A scenario based analysis of Sweden's transport strategies

“…The electricity grid is also an interconnected network with inherent interdependencies, which expose it to systemic risk. For example, harsh weather such as ice storms, solar activity that cause geomagnetic disturbances [65,66] and attacks on critical nodes [67] can cause outages that cascade and affect large geographical areas.…”

Assessing Energy Security in a Low-Carbon Context: The Case of Electricity in the UK

“…It could be that the unfamiliarity of large-scale domestic biomass production leaves the TF pathway more vulnerable to disruption from opposition to resource extraction, or to local conflicts with non-state actors (Månsson 2015). However, the recent protests against fracking illustrate that although gas and coal themselves are very familiar, new extraction techniques are emerging which are highly vulnerable to disruption.…”

“…Greenpeace (2005), Johansson (2013) and Månsson (2015) all argue that a decentralised system will be less vulnerable to a large loss of in-feed, for instance such as that caused by a failure at a nuclear plant, and that decentralisation would minimise the impact of a significant shock such as a terrorist attack. Meanwhile Hoggett (2014) argues that small-scale systems are less vulnerable to supply chain disruption because of shorter and less complex supply chains.…”

“…For instance, pursuing energy efficiency and demand reduction measures would reduce the amount of energy we use, thereby for example reducing GHG emissions whilst reducing the risk of physical depletion of resources, and potentially even reducing energy costs for consumers (Adelle et al 2009;Berk et al 2006;Froggatt and Levi 2009;Greenpeace 2010a;Hoggett et al 2013;Pye et al 2014). On the supply side, it is argued that a greater share of renewable energy sources (RES) in the energy mix would improve energy security by reducing reliance on fossil fuels and increasing the geographical dispersion of energy supply resources; moreover, a portfolio using several different types of RES would likely improve diversity (Adelle et al 2009;Berk et al 2006;Brown and Huntingdon 2008;Diesendorf 2011;Froggatt and Levi 2009;Johansson et al 2014;Månsson 2015;Wicks 2009). Furthermore, non-fuelrelated measures could potentially provide win-win solutions; for instance, it is argued that improving international agreements and pursuing cross-border energy flows could greatly improve system resilience and could also lower costs (Francés et al 2013;Wicks 2009).…”