| Literature DB >> 30364534 |
Shahzada M Naeem Nawaz1, Shahzad Alvi2.
Abstract
One of the prime concern of policy makers should be to ensure energy security in the country. The case of Pakistan is interesting in a sense that with the growing age of the country, the increasing reliance on imported sources of energy is resulting in huge demand-supply gap which is evident in suppressed demand for electricity and natural gas. It has social, economic and environmental consequences. Most of the countries in the world have shifted their focus from imported to indigenous resources which are more often cheap, environmental friendly and provide competitiveness. The study reveals, through exploring secondary data, descriptive analysis, Johanson Cointegration and Granger Causality test results based on error correction model, energy insecurity is damaging for environment and socio-economic conditions. The study suggests policy makers to move toward long run energy security to get environmental and socio-economic sustainability in the country through minimizing reliance on imported energy and promoting energy efficiency.Entities:
Keywords: Economics; Energy
Year: 2018 PMID: 30364534 PMCID: PMC6197421 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00854
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Percentage share of energy sources: Pakistan.
| Primary Energy Supply Mix | Percentage Share |
|---|---|
| Oil | 35.5 |
| Gas | 42.6 |
| LPG | 0.7 |
| LNG | 0.7 |
| Coal | 7 |
| Hydro-Energy | 11 |
| Nuclear-Energy | 2 |
| Renewable-Energy (Solar, Biomass & Micro Hydroelectricity) | 0.3 |
| Imported-Energy | 0.2 |
Fig. 1Percentage share of energy generation by hydroelectricity and thermal in Pakistan.
Fig. 2Co-movement of Crude Oil prices and cost of Fuel on electricity.
World net electricity generation by energy source, 2010–40 (trillion kilowatt-hours).
| 2012 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2035 | 2040 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Renewables | 4.73 | 6.87 | 7.89 | 8.68 | 9.64 | 10.63 |
| Natural gas | 4.83 | 5.26 | 6.30 | 7.47 | 8.78 | 10.14 |
| Nuclear | 2.34 | 3.05 | 3.40 | 3.95 | 4.25 | 4.50 |
| Coal | 8.60 | 9.73 | 10.07 | 10.12 | 10.31 | 10.62 |
| Liquids | 1.06 | 0.86 | 0.69 | 0.62 | 0.59 | 0.56 |
| Total | 21.56 | 25.77 | 28.35 | 30.84 | 33.58 | 36.45 |
Fig. 3Demand and supply gap of electricity in Pakistan.
Capacity, capability and demand of electricity.
| Financial Year | Installed Generation Capacity | Generation Capability | Demand during Peak Hours | Demand-Supply Gap | Capacity-Peak Demand |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 17,367 | 13,353 | 12,035 | 1,318 | 5,332 |
| 2006 | 17,395 | 13,402 | 13,118 | 284 | 4,277 |
| 2007 | 17,395 | 13,292 | 15,138 | (1,846) | 2,257 |
| 2008 | 17,526 | 12,442 | 16,838 | (4,396) | 688 |
| 2009 | 17,827 | 13,637 | 17,852 | (4,215) | (25) |
| 2010 | 18,022 | 12,751 | 18,467 | (5,716) | (445) |
| 2011 | 18,892 | 13,193 | 18,521 | (5,328) | 371 |
| 2012 | 20,986 | 12,320 | 18,940 | (6,620) | 2,046 |
| 2013 | 20,499 | 14,600 | 18,827 | (4,227) | 1,672 |
| 2014 | 20,850 | 16,170 | 20,576 | (4,406) | 274 |
| 2015 | 22,104 | 16,500 | 21,701 | (5,201) | 403 |
Fig. 4Pakistan vs. OECD: Energy security risk index score.
Fig. 5Major factors of energy security risk. A) Energy expenditure intensity, B) Energy intensity, C) Crude oil prices, D) CO2 emissions trend, E) Energy expenditure volatility, F) Transport energy intensity, G) Electricity capacity diversity.
Indicators of energy security risk index and weighting scheme.
| Metric | Weight | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Global Oil Reserves | 2.0% |
| 2 | Global Oil Production | 3.0% |
| 3 | Global Gas Reserves | 2.0% |
| 4 | Global Gas Production | 3.0% |
| 5 | Global Coal Reserves | 2.0% |
| 6 | Global Coal Production | 2.0% |
| 7 | Oil Import Exposure | 3.0% |
| 8 | Gas Import Exposure | 3.0% |
| 9 | Coal Import Exposure | 2.0% |
| 10 | Total Energy Import Exposure | 4.0% |
| 11 | Fossil Fuel Import Expenditure per GDP | 5.0% |
| 12 | Energy Expenditure Intensity | 4.0% |
| 13 | Energy Expenditures per Capita | 3.0% |
| 14 | Retail Electricity Prices | 6.0% |
| 15 | Crude Oil Prices | 7.0% |
| 16 | Crude Oil Price Volatility | 5.0% |
| 17 | Energy Expenditure Volatility | 4.0% |
| 18 | World Oil Refinery Usage | 2.0% |
| 19 | GDP per Capita | 4.0% |
| 20 | Energy Consumption per Capita | 4.0% |
| 21 | Energy Intensity | 7.0% |
| 22 | Petroleum Intensity | 3.0% |
| 23 | Electricity Capacity Diversity | 5.0% |
| 24 | Non-Carbon Generation | 2.0% |
| 25 | Transport Energy per Capita | 3.0% |
| 26 | Transport Energy Intensity | 4.0% |
| 27 | CO2 Emissions Trend | 2.0% |
| 28 | CO2 per Capita | 2.0% |
| 29 | CO2 GDP Intensity | 2.0% |
| Weighted Total Index | 100.0% |
Test for unit root.
| Variable | ADF t-statistics | P-value |
|---|---|---|
| EINS | −0.882 | 0.782 |
| SEC | −1.170 | 0.671 |
| ENV | −0.339 | 0.907 |
| EINS | −4.815 | 0.000 |
| SEC | −6.479 | 0.000 |
| ENV | −6.962 | 0.000 |
ADF tests at the 5% and 10% significance levels. * is indicating that null hypothesis is rejected at 5%.
Johansen cointegration test results.
| Cointegrating rank | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Eigenvalue | Trace Statistics | Probability | |
| r = 0 | 0.565 | 49.594 | 0.034 |
| r ≤ 1 | 0.294 | 21.244 | 0.342 |
| r ≤ 2 | 0.156 | 9.399 | 0.329 |
| r ≤ 3 | 0.101 | 3.623 | 0.057 |
| Eigenvalue | Max. Eigen Statistics | Probability | |
| r = 0 | 0.565 | 28.349 | 0.039 |
| r ≤ 1 | 0.294 | 11.845 | 0.563 |
| r ≤ 2 | 0.156 | 5.776 | 0.642 |
| r ≤ 3 | 0.101 | 3.623 | 0.057 |
r denotes the number of cointegrating vectors.
Denotes rejection of the null hypothesis of cointegration rank r at the 5% significance level. It is indicating that log-run association exist between these variables.
Short run and long run F-test results based on error correction models (ECM).
| Short run Granger Causality F-test results | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | EINS | SEC | ENV |
| EINS | - | 1.436 (0.258) | 5.358 (0.012) |
| SEC | 1.159 (0.331) | - | 3.203 (0.033) |
| ENV | 2.949 | 4.565** (0.057) | - |
| ECT (Dependent EINS) | −0.799 | 0.724 (0.044) | −0.542 (0.158) |
| ECT (Dependent SEC) | −0.445 | −1.13 | 0.402 (0.039) |
| ECT (Dependent ENV) | −0.991 (0.201) | 1.020 (1.110) | −0.161 (0.451) |
P-values are in parentheses. * and ** denotes at 5% and 10% significance level.