| Literature DB >> 32838023 |
Muntasir Murshed1, Muntaha Masud Tanha2.
Abstract
This paper makes a novel attempt to model the nonlinear association between renewable energy consumption and crude oil prices concerning four net oil-importing South Asian economies: Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Using annual data from 1990 to 2018, the long-run elasticity estimates confirm the nonlinear nexus and suggest that although rising crude oil prices do not facilitate renewable energy consumption initially, upon reaching a threshold level of crude oil price, further hikes in the oil prices are likely to elevate the renewable energy consumption figures. The estimated real oil price threshold, in this regard, is predicted to be around 135 US dollars per barrel, which is way above the prevailing oil price level. Identical nonlinearity is also confirmed in the context of the oil prices and renewable energy share in total final energy consumption volumes. Moreover, the nexus between renewable electricity share in aggregate electricity outputs and crude oil prices is also seen to exhibit nonlinearity. However, rising crude oil prices were not found to enhance the renewable electricity shares. Besides, the causality results implicated that movements in crude oil prices influenced the renewable energy transition process across the concerned South Asian economies. Thus, these results, in a nutshell, impose critically important policy implications for attainment of energy security and environmental sustainability in South Asia, particularly via curbing the traditional imported crude oil-dependencies of these nations. © The Joint Center on Global Change and Earth System Science of the University of Maryland and Beijing Normal University 2020.Entities:
Keywords: Cross-sectional dependency; Crude oil price; Net oil-importing economies; Renewable energy; Renewable energy transition; South Asia
Year: 2020 PMID: 32838023 PMCID: PMC7240004 DOI: 10.1007/s40974-020-00168-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Energy Ecol Environ
Trends in REC across the selected South Asian economies.
Source: World Development Indicators (World Bank 2019)
| Period | Bangladesh | India | Pakistan | Sri Lanka |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Renewable energy consumption (kg of oil equivalent per capita) | ||||
| 1990–1995 | 88.40 | 207.13 | 229.73 | 241.54 |
| 1996–2000 | 84.62 | 211.68 | 228.33 | 253.90 |
| 2001–2005 | 84.10 | 216.26 | 225.57 | 273.60 |
| 2006–2010 | 84.70 | 221.26 | 221.76 | 286.26 |
| 2011–2015 | 83.53 | 226.48 | 216.33 | 300.00 |
| 2016–2018 | 83.00 | 224.37 | 216.73 | 287.21 |
| Renewable energy share (% of total energy consumption) | ||||
| 1990–1995 | 69.97 | 56.75 | 55.51 | 74.34 |
| 1996–2000 | 60.37 | 52.45 | 51.38 | 64.37 |
| 2001–2005 | 53.13 | 50.30 | 49.43 | 61.60 |
| 2006–2010 | 45.34 | 43.44 | 45.86 | 61.86 |
| 2011–2015 | 37.84 | 37.57 | 46.63 | 58.05 |
| 2016–2018 | 37.11 | 36.96 | 46.75 | 55.89 |
The figures are given in terms of period averages
Fig. 4Energy-mixes for electricity generation purposes across the selected South Asian nations.
Source: World Development Indicators (World Bank 2019)
Fig. 1Correlative plots of renewable energy shares and crude oil prices.
Source: Author’s own
Fig. 5Trends in renewable energy consumption and renewable electricity output shares and real oil prices.
Source: World Bank (2019)
Fig. 2The Substitution Effect of rising crude oil prices on energy consumption trends.
Source: Authors’ own
Descriptive statistics
| Variable | lnREC | lnRES | lnRELEC | lnROILP | LnRGDP | LnDEPEND | LnCO2 | LnTO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 24.002 | 3.954 | 2.873 | 3.883 | 25.762 | 2.847 | − 0.549 | 3.656 |
| SD | 1.455 | 0.195 | 1.132 | 0.528 | 1.314 | 0.582 | 0.601 | 0.408 |
| Minimum | 22.136 | 3.548 | 0.115 | 2.930 | 23.749 | 1.583 | − 1.672 | 2.741 |
| Maximum | 26.437 | 4.358 | 4.604 | 4.777 | 28.675 | 3.761 | 0.256 | 4.485 |
| Skewness | 0.492 | − 0.156 | − 0.877 | 0.289 | 0.678 | − 0.256 | − 0.320 | 0.155 |
| Kurtosis | 1.841 | 2.409 | 2.922 | 1.910 | 2.414 | 1.782 | 2.627 | 2.410 |
| Observations | 116 | 116 | 116 | 116 | 116 | 116 | 116 | 116 |
Cross-sectional dependency and slope heterogeneity test results
| Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistic | Statistic | Statistic | ||||
| CD tests | ||||||
| Breusch-Pagan LM | 133.345*** | 0.000 | 107.05*** | 0.000 | 121.02*** | 0.000 |
| Pesaran CD | 3.112*** | 0.002 | 1.851** | 0.045 | 1.911** | 0.039 |
| Slope heterogeneity test | ||||||
| | 15.041*** | 0.000 | 14.021*** | 0.000 | 15.449*** | 0.000 |
| | 15.019*** | 0.000 | 14.392*** | 0.000 | 16.012*** | 0.000 |
***, **Statistical significance at 1% and 5% levels, respectively
Fig. 3Methodological schema of the paper
Panel unit root test with cross-sectional dependency results
| Variable | Level | 1st difference | Order of integration | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | Intercept and trend | Intercept | Intercept and trend | ||
| Pesaran CADF test | |||||
| lnREC | − 1.488 | − 2.429 | − 2.519*** | − 3.220** | I(1) |
| lnRES | − 1.116 | − .1717 | − 0.453 | − 3.204** | I(1) |
| lnRELEC | − 1.823 | − 2.511 | − 3.133*** | − 3.072** | I(1) |
| lnROILP2/lnROILP2 | − 1.610 | − 1.700 | − 2.819*** | − 3.700*** | I(1) |
| lnRGDP | − 1.691 | − 2.222 | − 2.281 | − 3.979*** | I(1) |
| lnROILP * lnRGDP | − 1.283 | − 1.586 | − 2.456* | − 3.998*** | I(1) |
| lnDEPEND | − 1.919 | − 2.283 | − 3.892*** | − 3.794*** | I(1) |
| lnCO2 | − 1.849 | − 2.721 | − 3.216*** | − 3.209** | I(1) |
| lnTO | − 1.969 | − 1.806 | − 2.435* | − 3.983*** | I(1) |
| Pesaran CIPS test | |||||
| lnREC | − 2.001 | − 2.129 | − 6.001*** | − 6.084*** | I(1) |
| lnRES | − 2.068 | − 1.954 | − 4.945*** | − 5.023*** | I(1) |
| lnRELEC | − 2.101 | − 2.023 | − 5.682*** | − 5.678*** | I(1) |
| lnROILP2/lnROILP2 | − 1.610 | − 1.700 | − 3.320*** | − 3.952*** | I(1) |
| lnRGDP | − 1.677 | − 2.113 | − 4.417*** | − 4.389*** | I(1) |
| lnROILP * lnRGDP | − 0.552 | − 1.895 | − 3.709*** | − 3.764*** | I(1) |
| lnDEPEND | − 1.995 | − 1.942 | − 5.183*** | − 5.165*** | I(1) |
| lnCO2 | − 2.139 | − 2.019 | − 5.445*** | − 5.541*** | I(1) |
| lnTO | − 1.615 | − 1.849 | − 5.295*** | − 5.288*** | I(1) |
The optimal lags are chosen based on the akaike information criterion (AIC)
***, **, *Statistical significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively
Westerlund cointegration test results
| Test statistic | Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value | Value | Value | ||||
| Gt | − 3.101*** | 0.000 | − 3.286*** | 0.000 | − 2.714* | 0.100 |
| Ga | − 4.645*** | 0.000 | − 4.883*** | 0.000 | − 5.019*** | 0.000 |
| Pt | − 6.145 | 0.200 | − 7.836*** | 0.000 | − 5.664* | 0.100 |
| Pa | − 5.111* | 0.100 | − 4.660* | 0.100 | − 2.975 | 0.300 |
The bootstrapping regression is conducted with 100 replications. The optimal lag selection is based on AIC
***, *Statistical significance at 1% and 10% levels, respectively
Long-run elasticity estimates from the panel regression analyses
| Dep. var. | Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnREC | lnRES | lnRELECS | |||||||
| Estimator | MG | CCEMG | AMG | MG | CCEMG | AMG | MG | CCEMG | AMG |
| lnROILP | − 3.200*** (0.729) | − 2.347*** (0.566) | − 3.593*** (0.710) | − 0.988** (0.415) | − 0.610*** (0.021) | − 0.912** (0.450) | − 2.123*** (0.324) | − 3.167*** (1.012) | − 2.644*** (0.412) |
| lnROILP2 | 0.140** (0.069) | 0.096* (0.054) | 0.112** (0.509) | 0.057** (0.025) | 0.009*** (0.005) | 0.067*** (0.012) | − 0.024** (0.013) | − 0.048** (0.023) | − 0.171*** (0.024) |
| lnRGDP | 0.491*** (0.081) | 0.637*** (0.062) | 0.487** (0.243) | − 0.112** (0.045) | − 0.099*** (0.014) | − 0.121** (0.059) | 1.851*** (0.420) | 2.592*** (0.991) | 1.347*** (0.807) |
| lnROILP * lnRGDP | 0.073*** (0.019) | 0.053*** (0.015) | 0.080*** (0.012) | 0.015 (0.011) | 0.001 (0.001) | 0.013 (0.015) | 1.016 (0.729) | 1.029 (1.023) | 1.332 (1.000) |
| lnDEPEND | − 0.211*** (0.047) | − 0.169*** (0.024) | − 0.239** (0.124) | − 0.154*** (0.027) | − 0.134*** (0.015) | − 0.160*** (0.031) | − 0.458** (0.231) | − 0.229*** (0.088) | − 0.477*** (0.114) |
| lnCO2 | 0.678*** (0.062) | 0.605*** (0.037) | 0.722*** (0.090) | − 0.229*** (0.028) | − 0.245*** (0.022) | − 0.232** (0.110) | − 1.312*** (0.503) | − 0.747** (0.036) | − 0.992** (0.462) |
| lnTO | 0.281*** (0.071) | 0.232*** (0.044) | 0.292*** (0.065) | − 0.177*** (0.041) | − 0.135*** (0.023) | − 0.180** (0.053) | − 0.353 (0.291) | − 0.538 (0.393) | − 0.217 (0.259) |
The standard errors are reported within the parentheses
***, **, *Statistical significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively
The Dumitrescu–Hurlin panel causality test results
| Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Null hypothesis ( | Null hypothesis ( | Null hypothesis ( | |||
| lnROILP → lnREC | 8.382*** (0.000) | lnROILP → lnRES | 4.649*** (0.000) | lnROILP → lnRELEC | 6.071*** (0.003) |
| lnREC → lnROILP | 2.296** (0.030) | lnRES → lnROILP | 1.192 (0.231) | lnRELEC → lnROILP | 1.874 (0.382) |
| lnRGDP → lnREC | 9.841*** (0.000) | lnRGDP → lnRES | 3.351*** (0.002) | lnRGDP → lnRELEC | 3.298*** (0.001) |
| lnREC → lnRGDP | 2.113** (0.035) | lnRES → lnRGDP | 1.034 (0.300) | lnRELEC → lnRGDP | 5.570*** (0.000) |
| lnDEPEND → lnREC | 1.147 (0.684) | lnDEPEND → lnRES | 6.112*** (0.000) | lnDEPEND → lnRELEC | 3.396*** (0.001) |
| lnREC → lnDEPEND | 3.083*** (0.002) | lnRES → lnDEPEND | 8.222*** (0.000) | lnRELEC → lnDEPEND | 0.684 (0.297) |
| lnCO2 → lnREC | 1.271 (0.682) | lnCO2 → lnRES | 6.671*** (0.000) | lnCO2 → lnRELEC | 7.487*** (0.000) |
| lnREC → lnCO2 | 2.708*** (0.007) | lnRES → lnCO2 | 4.019*** (0.000) | lnRELEC → lnCO2 | 0.912 (0.306) |
| lnTO → lnREC | 11.286*** (0.000) | lnTO → lnRES | 6.993*** (0.000) | lnTO → lnRELEC | 2.335** (0.020) |
| lnREC → lnTO | 2.228*** (0.006) | lnRES → lnTO | 0.442 (0.341) | lnRELEC → lnTO | 2.347** (0.018) |
→ Indicates does not Granger cause; The p values, computed using 100 bootstrap replications, are reported within the parentheses
***, **, *Statistical significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively