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.
What else motivates high renewable energy targets in the Pacific? The fact that the governments of Tuvalu or Nauru cannot afford the investment required to meet their ambitious renewable energy targets suggests that one of the drivers of these drastic targets is that the money is coming from elsewhere. Renewable energy targets can be viewed as a means of attracting donor funds for Pacific island countries: extremely ambitious renewable energy targets signal to donors that a country is serious about renewable technologies. At the same time, Pacific island governments are able to demonstrate to the world that they are reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and that larger countries should be doing the same.
The establishment of ambitious renewable energy targets by Pacific island countries is justified where low-cost renewable energy resources such as hydro-power, geothermal and biomass supply are available. However, four of the six Pacific islands which have adopted a 100 per cent target have no low-cost renewable energy resources. These high targets are not a cost-effective means of addressing climate change, nor a strategy to mitigate the negative effects of oil price volatility. Many of the renewable energy targets set out in the Barbados Declaration are political targets, funded by donors, and designed to instigate action against climate change in larger countries. It is time that donors responded only to sensible energy plans and targets.
Renewable Energy Targets of Pacific Island Countries, July 2012
|
Renewable energy target |
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).
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.