Search

The COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's war on Ukraine have impacted the global economy, including the energy sector. The pandemic caused drastic fluctuations in energy demand, oil price shocks, disruptions in energy supply chains, and hampered energy investments, while the war left the world with energy price hikes and energy security challenges. The long-term impacts of these crises on low-carbon energy transitions and mitigation of climate change are still uncertain but are slowly emerging. This paper analyzes the impacts throughout the energy system, including upstream fuel supply, renewable energy investments, demand for energy services, and implications for energy equity, by reviewing recent studies and consulting experts in the field. We find that both crises initially appeared as opportunities for low-carbon energy transitions: the pandemic by showing the extent of lifestyle and behavioral change in a short period and the role of science-based policy advice, and the war by highlighting the need for greater energy diversification and reliance on local, renewable energy sources. However, the early evidence suggests that policymaking worldwide is focused on short-term, seemingly quicker solutions, such as supporting the incumbent energy industry in the post-pandemic era to save the economy and looking for new fossil fuel supply routes for enhancing energy security following the war. As such, the fossil fuel industry may emerge even stronger after these energy crises creating new lock-ins. This implies that the public sentiment against dependency on fossil fuels may end as a lost opportunity to translate into actions toward climate-friendly energy transitions, without ambitious plans for phasing out such fuels altogether. We propose policy recommendations to overcome these challenges toward achieving resilient and sustainable energy systems, mostly driven by energy services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Energy Policy Journal / Polityka Energetyczna is the property of Mineral & Energy Economy Research Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The development of renewable energy sources (RES) is considered to be a key instrument in addressing climate change. However, different RES have different potential and economic feasibility depending on country-specific conditions and mitigation ambitions. Understanding the relative importance of each RES could help policymakers focus their efforts on the most promising options. In this paper, we focus on Ukraine and explore the potential of biomass use under two mitigation scenarios – with 68% and 83% of greenhouse gas emissions reduction in 2050 relative to the 2010 level. First, using the TIMES-Ukraine energy system model, we show that biomass would play a major role in the future climate mitigation. If constrained at the baseline scenario level (due to political or other reasons), mitigation costs would be substantially higher – by 14.0–19.6 B € or 10.8–14.3 €/tCO 2 -eq., over the 2020–2050 time frame. Second, we quantify the importance of each biomass source. We show that woody biomass and bioliquids are the most important biofuels under the high-ambition climate scenario, while biowaste and bioliquids play a key role in the lower ambition pathway. Finally, we analyse the current policy environment in the context of future biomass development and conclude with a set of policy recommendations toward the realization of the biomass potential in Ukraine. We believe that findings presented in the paper would be relevant not only for supporting the decision-making process in Ukraine, but could also provide useful insights for other countries with similar conditions. • Two scenarios with 68% and 83% reduction in GHG emissions in 2050 relative to 2010. • Over 50% of all renewable energy is coming from biomass under both scenarios. • Bioenergy constraint increases mitigation costs by 10.8–14.3 EUR/tCO 2 or 2.4–3.2 times. • No significant impact of the biogas availability on the mitigation costs. • Constraining biowoods , bioliquids or biowaste increases costs by at least 35% each. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]