4.7 Article

Quantifying the value of energy security: How Russia's invasion of Ukraine exploded Europe's fossil fuel costs

期刊

ENERGY RESEARCH & SOCIAL SCIENCE
卷 103, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2023.103201

关键词

Energy security; Ukraine war; Fossil fuels; Energy prices; Europe; Renewables; Levelized cost of energy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

What is the value of energy security? This study analyzes the energy security risks of geopolitical volatility and estimates the additional costs incurred by Europe due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It is found that Europe spent an extra euro517-831 billion in excess market costs and announced an additional euro908 billion of fiscal spending on energy-related infrastructure and policies. The total fossil costs exceeded euro1 trillion, which is compared to Europe's aid to Ukraine and the costs of decarbonizing Europe's energy system.
What is the value of energy security? Fossil fuels are subject to interruptions or major price swings based on wars or other geopolitical events. Here, we analyze multiple dimensions of energy security, and quantify the energy security risks of geopolitical volatility in a specific case: we estimate how much Russia's invasion of Ukraine increased Europe's fossil fuel costs above normal. For the excess market costs, we count only the fuel costs beyond our estimates of the counterfactual costs. We find that Europe spent an extra euro517-831 billion in excess market costs due to higher prices in the period October 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022, with a best estimate of euro643 billion. European governments also announced an additional euro908 billion of fiscal spending on energyrelated infrastructure and policies. These two categories of costs are not fully commensurable, but the total fossil costs appear over euro1 trillion. We then compare these costs to two reference points: Europe's direct material aid to Ukraine in 2022 and the costs of more rapidly decarbonizing Europe's energy system.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据