Energy poverty is a widespread problem across Europe, as between 50 and 125 million people are unable to afford proper indoor thermal comfort.
Are renewables affecting income distribution and increasing the risk of household poverty?
Pereira et al. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218325…
Abstract:
The worldwide electricity mix has become diversified, mainly through the exploitation of endogenous and green resources. However, doubt has been cast on the much-vaunted advantages of renewables due to some of their characteristics, such as availability, security and affordability.
In fact, growth in the installed capacity of renewable energy has increased electricity prices, which raises the question of how households have withstood the cost of energy transition. The main aim of this study is to empirically assess and discuss: (i) whether different types of household have suffered dissimilar effects from the promotion of renewables; (ii) the consequences of promoting renewables on household income; and (iii) if the promotion of renewables has reduced the risk of poverty and social exclusion.
A panel data of European countries has been analysed using Kao’s residual cointegration test, and an Autoregressive Distributed Lag approach, to assess the relationships. This paper proves that both income and risk of household poverty are directly linked with renewable energies, in both the short- and long-run. The energy transition to renewables has had negative consequences for households. Thus, the disadvantaged households should be helped to meet the increased cost arising from the energy transition.
This is a two year old article. What does it mean for the current situation in Europe with high fossil fuel energy costs and electricity costs? You do know that EU governments are helping people with their energy costs currently.
So this article is worthless for the current situation in EU.
This is a two year old article. What does it mean for the current situation in Europe with high fossil fuel energy costs and electricity costs?
It means that the energy poverty situation in Europe has gotten worse.
www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-war-heats-up-energy-poverty-…
War in Ukraine is worsening energy poverty in the EU…Already in 2019, a quarter of EU households — around 50 million people — could not afford to adequately heat, cool or light their homes, according to an EU-led study…
In its REPowerEU program to wean the bloc off Russian energy that was released Wednesday, the EU pledged to increase its binding energy efficiency target from 9 percent to 13 percent by 2030. But the Commission’s suggestions for Europeans in its EU Save Energy Communication — which says people should: “switch off the lights” as well as “driving more economically” and “using less air-conditioning” — has not gone down well. “The EU response … seems extremely tone deaf to the lived experience of the financial strain of millions who are actually under-consuming energy right now,” said Martha Myers…
In Spain, 10 percent to 15 percent of the population was living in energy poverty last year. But energy bills rose by more than 60 percent in March relative to 2021…Madrid responded by slashing VAT on energy bills to 10 percent, renewing its ban on energy companies raising gas bills by more than 5 percent per quarter and introducing electricity subsidies for 1.3 million vulnerable households. The government also obtained exemptions from the EU allowing it to cap gas and electricity prices.
Everyone knows that Europeans are struggling with energy prices. It is i the news almost daily.
Yes, and the paper was about one of the contributing factors (predating the current war) in that “both income and risk of household poverty are directly linked with renewable energies”
This paper proves that both income and risk of household poverty are directly linked with renewable energies, in both the short- and long-run. The energy transition to renewables has had negative consequences for households. Thus, the disadvantaged households should be helped to meet the increased cost arising from the energy transition.
And in California:
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/2/12/electri…
California’s high penetration of intermittent renewables such as solar and wind are likely a key factor in higher prices. Economists agree that “the dominant policy driver in the electricity sector [in California] has unquestionably been a focus on developing renewable sources of electricity generation.”
www.utilitydive.com/news/californias-dilemma-how-to-control-…
Driven by clean energy and electrification mandates as well as utility investments in system modernization, residential rates across California have risen faster than inflation since 2013, Staff found. And due to Net Energy Metering (NEM) and other DER incentives, impacts have been worse for LMI [Low to Moderate Income] customers, it said.
Your first study was done in 2018 when oil was cheap and heading into a negative price per barrel. A barrel of oil and the cost of natural gas are at historic highs so what would a more current study show?
The second article was done by an industry supported news source which advertises on the source’s website. So, seeing this article supporting the electric power industry’s propaganda is not unexpected.
It would be so nice to see information on this board from more truthful and unbiased sources than is currently being posted.
Your first study was done in 2018 when oil was cheap and heading into a negative price per barrel. A barrel of oil and the cost of natural gas are at historic highs so what would a more current study show?
Obviously, higher energy prices lead to more energy poverty. I’m not sure of the thrust of your question.
Back to Europe; here is a study be Mastropietro. He writes:
“On the one hand, distributed energy resources have not proved to be the most economic efficient way to guarantee affordable supply to vulnerable customers. On the other hand, many scientific articles studied the effect of RES-E [renewable energy sources for electricity] charges on low-income consumers and found a regressive impact that could intensify energy poverty.”
From Justice, poverty, and electricity decarbonization by Monyei et al.
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/60463497/Monyei-et-al-…
In Germany, for instance, the exemption of privileged electricity consumers (industries) in 2015 from the German Renewable Energy Act EEG surcharge of 4.8 billion euros (107 TWh in electricity terms) increased the energy burden of other electricity consumers, particularly private households…
In California, renewable-energy mandates and its carbon cap-and-trade program have created a regressive energy tax resulting in higher household electricity burdens (percent of household income spent on electricity bills).
Everyone knows that Europeans are struggling with energy prices. It is i the news almost daily.
Yes, and the paper was about one of the contributing factors (predating the current war) in that “both income and risk of household poverty are directly linked with renewable energies”
The European governments are providing the people with new money to compensate for the energy increases, and the Europeans governments are going to greatly increase their renewable energy sectors because of their plans to totally abandon Russian coal, gas and oil.
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/60463497/Monyei-et-al-……
In Germany, for instance, the exemption of privileged electricity consumers (industries) in 2015 from the German Renewable Energy Act EEG surcharge of 4.8 billion euros (107 TWh in electricity terms) increased the energy burden of other electricity consumers, particularly private households…
In California, renewable-energy mandates and its carbon cap-and-trade program have created a regressive energy tax resulting in higher household electricity burdens (percent of household income spent on electricity bills).
Your link is broken. This sstudy sounds like it is from 7 years ago. Does the study say that the people of Germany and California elected politicians to do these renewable energy laws?
Drawing from examples in Germany, California, and Australia, we show that large scale integration of renewable energy in existing electricity grids does not necessarily lead to cheaper electricity, the strengthening of energy security, or the enhancement of economic equity. Indeed, efforts to integrate renewable energy into the grid can thwart efforts to reduce chronic poverty. Planners around the world need to be cautious, pragmatic and realistic when attempting to similarly decarbonize their energy systems.
Nothing new. Transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables energy takes money but saves the environment. Californians, Germans, and others have elected politicians to make the energy transition with the understanding that they will need to pay higher electricity costs.
Transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables energy takes money but saves the environment. Californians, Germans, and others have elected politicians to make the energy transition with the understanding that they will need to pay higher electricity costs.
Yep. As the authors in the OP wrote:
“This paper proves that both income and risk of household poverty are directly linked with renewable energies, in both the short- and long-run.”
“This paper proves that both income and risk of household poverty are directly linked with renewable energies, in both the short- and long-run.” — This paper has nothing to do with income!
The hazards of English as a second language. The title of the paper is actually –
Are renewables affecting income distribution and increasing the risk of household poverty?
Drawing from examples in Germany, California, and Australia, we show that large scale integration of renewable energy in existing electricity grids does not necessarily lead to cheaper electricity…
A study out of the University of Chicago looked at states that have had laws mandating renewable portfolio standards (RPS) for a number of years. Those states who had a program for 12 years saw a 4.2% increase in renewable’s share and price increases of 17%.
“These cost estimates significantly exceed the marginal operational costs of renewables and likely reflect costs that renewables impose on the generation system, including those associated with their intermittency, higher transmission costs, and any stranded asset costs assigned to ratepayers.”
The authors (Greenstone and Nath) estimate that the implied cost of carbon (cost per tonne of CO2) exceeded $130 and ranged as high as $460.
The most prevalent and perhaps most popular climate policies in the U.S. are Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that mandate that renewables (e.g., wind and solar) produce a specified share of electricity, yet little is known about their efficiency. Using the most comprehensive data set ever compiled and a difference-in-differences style research design, we find that electricity prices are 11% higher seven years after RPS passage, largely due to indirect grid integration costs (e.g., transmission and intermittency).
On the benefit side, carbon emissions are 10-25% lower. The cost per ton of CO2 abatement ranges from $58-$298 and is generally above $100.
From the same University of Chicago study: On the benefit side, carbon emissions are 10-25% lower. The cost per ton of CO2 abatement ranges from $58-$298 and is generally above $100.
The study should show of the the total cost of petro and coal power generation, price per barrel, per ton, etc., and add in environmental costs to see which method is really more expensive.