by Chen Weidong, Jiang Xi-Min and Zhou Xiaolai 11 February 2014 This Special Report was originally published as a Working Paper 2013-6 by the Center for Energy, Governance and Security at Hanyang university, Seoul. I. Introduction The energy sector of China is facing three challenges. This includes ensuring energy supply, reducing carbon emission, and furthering international cooperation. Advancing the E&P of natural […]
In this Special Report, Younkyoo Kim writes that despite both governments’ endless profession of an identity of interests between Russia and China, the truth is quite different. On global issues like intervention in third countries, non-proliferation, democracy promotion and Central Asia, Russia and China jointly act to resist US notions of a liberal world order dominated by its power. However, in regard to the regional security agenda in Asia we find only barely concealed and even potentially serious, if unadvertised, rivalries, e.g. in regard to Japan and Southeast Asia. Thus Russia is trying to do two contradictory things at the same time, namely bandwagon with China on the global and anti-American agenda, while attempting to carve out an independent balancing act directed to constrain China at the regional level. Kim contests that the deep-seated regional divergences between Moscow and Beijing throughout Asia have not been resolved and may not be capable of resolution given the dynamic forces at play throughout these areas.
Younkyoo Kim is Director of the Center for Energy Governance & Security and Associate Professor in the Division of International Studies, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.
The term “energy security” has typically meant little more than securing access to sufficient quantities of fossil fuels at reasonable prices. A broader concept of energy security is needed to adequately consider the full costs and benefits of potential energy policies designed to cope with not only fuel sufficiency and price, but also complex challenges ranging from climate change, to local energy-related pollution, to the social, political, and radiological fallout of the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in 2011, to cite just a few examples. This paper updates the authors’ concept of a comprehensive energy security assessment framework that includes not only energy supply and economic considerations, but also technological, environmental, social/political/cultural, and international/military security dimensions of energy security. We apply this concept to an assessment of selected energy sector redevelopment “paths”—essentially, quantitative descriptions of energy futures—for North Korea, comparing the relative quantitative and qualitative costs and benefits from each of these energy security dimensions from both the perspective of the DPRK and from the perspective of the broader Northeast Asia (and interested parties) region. We conclude with an exploration of the energy policies that our energy security assessment identifies as “robust”, that is, useful across the full range of energy security dimensions.
David F. von Hippel is a Nautilus Institute Senior Associate. His work with Nautilus has centered on energy and environmental issues in Asia, with a particular emphasis on Northeast Asia and North Korea. Peter Hayes is Executive Director of the Nautilus Institute and a Professor of International Relations at RMIT University.
Zhang Tuosheng, a Chinese strategist, argues that China’s policy toward North Korea must change with the times…
In Paik Haksoon’s inaugural NAPSNet Special Report and Nautilus’ first Korean-language Special Report, Dr Paik…
Against the background of a growing demand for energy worldwide, many claim that the hydrocarbon resources of the Arctic region have become an important variable for future energy security. Multiple factors seem to render Arctic energy resources attractive: the expected persistence of fossil fuels (especially oil and gas) in the global energy mix, instability in oil-supplying countries in the Middle East, and the unclear future of nuclear energy after the Fukushima disaster. Nonetheless, the complexity of resource exploitation in such a remote region as the Arctic, as well as the potential for environmental disasters, raises significant questions about such a proposition. Rather, how promising Arctic resources really are for future energy security concerns is an empirical question requiring careful evaluation. How many resources are actually in the Arctic relative to resources farther south? What are the conditions under which they could be viably and commercially exploited? What interest do the states possessing Arctic hydrocarbons, i.e. the five Arctic littoral states US, Canada, Russia, Norway and Denmark/Greenland, have in exploring and exploiting their Arctic resources? Only after answering these questions is it possible to come to tangible conclusions about the role of Arctic oil and gas for future energy security concerns.
Kathrin Keil is currently a PhD Candidate at the Berlin Graduate School for Transnational Studies(BTS) at the Freie Universität Berlin. She is writing her dissertation on the international politics of the Arctic, with a focus on international regimes and institutions in the areas of energy, shipping and fishing.
Peter Hayes and Roger Cavazos analyze Kim Jong-un’s 2014 New Year’s speech. They find that the speech provide…
Peter Hayes and Roger Cavazos analyze information flows to and from China and analyze social media use (especi…
In this Special Report David von Hippel first provides a general description of the elements of the full energy cycle that should be included in any comparison of different options for supplying electricity, followed by a description of the potential categories of “costs”, broadly defined to include a wide range of costs and impacts, that may be incurred as a part of each element of the energy cycle. He then applies these fuel cycle elements and costs to qualitatively examine some of the key potential relative costs and impacts of three potential options for providing electricity in Northeast Asia—coal-fired, gas-fired, and nuclear power. Following this qualitative treatment, von Hippel presents the assumptions and results of an initial quantitative analysis at two specific categories of costs/impacts for these generation options: direct costs and greenhouse gas emissions, focusing on coal- and gas-fired options in NEA fired with fuels imported from the United States (or North America more generally). A concluding section summarizes the findings of this Working Paper.
David F. von Hippel is a Nautilus Institute Senior Associate. His work with Nautilus has centered on energy and environmental issues in Asia, with a particular emphasis on Northeast Asia and North Korea.
In this Special Report, Chen Jimin makes three observations and three suggestions while discussing the U.S. al…
