Renewable energy in the Pacific: why are unrealistic targets adopted?

August 3, 2012 | 7:00 pm

Author: Matthew Dornan, ANU In the weeks preceding the Rio+20 summit, various Pacific island countries adopted ambitious voluntary renewable energy targets as part of the Barbados Declaration. Some of these targets appear overly ambitious. Six Pacific island countries aim to generate 100 per cent of their electricity from renewable technologies — some of them as early as 2012. Contrast this with the 20 per cent target established by both the EU and Australia for 2020, or targets in developing countries such as China (15 per cent by 2020) or Chile (10 per cent by 2024). Most of these targets are not new; the majority of Pacific island countries have established renewable energy targets over the last five years. There are a number of reasons for thinking that some of the targets that have been adopted are overly ambitious. From an economic perspective, the limited availability of low-cost renewable energy resources in many Pacific island countries means generating 100 per cent of electricity from renewable energy is costly. In low islands and atolls such as Tuvalu (Funafuti), Niue, Tonga (Tongatapu) and Nauru, solar and wind power is available but expensive due to low wind speeds and, in some countries, the need to ‘cyclone proof’ wind turbines. The intermittent power supply from these technologies is also a problem, as is the need to have sufficient generation capacity for times of the day when demand for power is at its highest. Storing electricity will be necessary as a result, but is also very expensive. High renewable energy targets are appropriate from an economic perspective in some Pacific island countries. In Fiji for example, there are ample low-cost renewable energy resources, such as hydro-power, geothermal or biomass supply, which make the government’s adoption of a 90 per cent renewable energy target appropriate. Samoa, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands also have considerable low-cost renewable energy resources. Many countries that have established 100 per cent targets have no such resource base, which renders the whole scheme extremely costly. The Tuvalu government, for example, plans to use solar power to generate 95 per cent of its electricity and, if feasible, complement it with wind power. If, as the Tuvalu government claims, only 5 per cent of electricity demand is met by biofuel-powered generators, expensive battery storage is likely to be required. This is not to say that Pacific island countries should not invest in solar or wind power: investing in high-cost renewable technologies can help mitigate the adverse effects of volatile oil prices. But the risk mitigation benefits of 100 per cent renewable energy targets are lower than those of more modest targets, given the diversification effect. In most cases an energy mix with some diesel-based generation is preferable because it is cheaper and involves less financial risk. There are other reasons for establishing high renewable energy targets in the Pacific. Climate change mitigation is clearly an important issue for Pacific island states. A problem with the high renewable energy targets adopted by Pacific island governments is that they are not a cost-effective way of addressing climate change. The cost of mitigation using renewable technologies in these countries is too high for such targets to be effective. The renewable energy targets also often do not incorporate energy efficiency improvements — a far cheaper way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions than renewable technologies (although comprehensive renewable energy programs such as the Tongan Energy Roadmap do include an energy efficiency component). A more compelling climate change-related argument for the targets is political. The targets can be viewed as a lobbying mechanism designed to push larger countries to take action against climate change. This clearly motivated the high profile Barbados Declaration, which was announced in anticipation of the Rio+20 summit. But there are better ways to persuade large countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as by focusing on the impacts of climate change in low-lying island states. There is no need to demonstrate that it is feasible to rely on renewable energy alone to supply a whole country’s electricity needs. It is the cost, the political economy and the public good aspects of climate change action that are limiting action among larger countries — not technological feasibility. Renewable Energy Targets of Pacific Island Countries, July 2012

Renewable energy target (per cent of power supply)

Matthew Dornan is a Post-doctoral Research Fellow at the Development Policy Centre, Australian National University. A version of this article was first published here on the Development Policy blog. Pacific Small states, high oil prices: renewable technologies in the Pacific Renewable energy and civil society in post-Fukushima Japan Carbon emission targets and investment in clean technologies

Year to be achieved

Cook Islands

100

2020

Solomon Islands

100

2030

Tokelau

100

2012

Tuvalu

100

2020

Vanuatu

100

2013

Niue

100

Fiji

90

2015

Nauru

50

2015

Tonga

50

2020

FSM

30

Samoa

20*

2030

Marshall Islands

20

2020

Palau

20

2030

Kiribati

10

* Primary energy supply Source: These data are from a range of sources, including the Barbados Declaration, government webpages, SPREP reports, and the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

Asia Climate Change, climate change mitigation, Development, emissions reduction targets, Energy, Environment and Climate Change, global warming, Kiribati, Nauru, oil prices, Pacific, Pacific Islands, renewable, renewable energy, resources, Rio+20, Small Island Developing States, Solomon Islands, South Pacific, Tuvalu