Global Energy and COVID19, Capstone Project Example
Words: 7455Capstone Project
The coronavirus (Covid-19) has triggered the globe’s worst crisis in decades, sending shockwaves across health systems, economics, and society all around the world. In the face of an unforeseen crisis, governments concentrate on controlling the illness and rebuilding their economies. Different governments have suffered energy demands and thus experienced a contraction of economic degradation. Assessing other economies in the world today, rapid recoveries on energy demand across various sectors during the COVID 19 era have hugely impacted countries in the European Union, such as the U. S. While the global crisis is highly escalating in the current year 2021, different recovery mechanisms being put in place will put up a growing state of the economy which is highly compensating from the drop in 2020.
The COVID-19 epidemic, which has been labeled a worldwide emergency, has claimed countless lives and put livelihoods and companies at risk all across the globe. Elavarasan states that the energy business, in particular, has been put under a lot of stress due to the epidemic. Implementing sustainable energy and renewable energy facilities has proved its promise as a viable and successful method in reaction to such a problem. Preferences for the short-term plan should be expressed. A mid-term and long-term strategic plan should be devised to achieve well-defined sustainability objectives and advance toward a cleaner energy economy to combat COVID-19’s adverse influence on renewable technology effectively. The potential, barricades, and implications of the COVID-19 global pandemic on ongoing and prospective renewable energy strategies, as well as insights acquired in identifying plausible behavior patterns, realigning reasonable steps, and political consequences on the renewables path of travel, were examined in this evaluation. The question is whether the COVID-19 outbreak will harm us or teach us anything useful about sustainable manufacturing in the future. Consequently, this article looks at how various energy industries have aided economic development in the United States and other regions of the globe in the past.
What is the impact of COVID 19 on global energy?
- How is the world strategizing on global economic recovery?
- What is the energy demand by fuel in the world today?
- How has COVID 19 affected CO2 emissions, electricity production, Natural gas production, renewables, Gas and Oil and Coal production?
- What have energy alternatives been found effective after the pandemic?
- How do solar P.V., Wind, Nuclear, low carbon, and coal impact energy today?
- How has the government of the United States stepped up to manage the global energy concerning COVID 19 influence and management measures such as lockdown initiatives?
The global response towards the COVID pandemic has hugely impacted the related business and industrial activities. The COVID-19 epidemic is putting pressure on all tiers of government to respond in an environment of considerable unpredictability and economic, budgetary, and social constraint. With the appearance of variations and the commencement of fresh waves of transmission in many regions from mid-2020, authorities are faced with a limited capacity to sequential policy action. Global, regional, and municipal governments have discovered that they cannot rely on a direct or linear route of policy action to manage, escape, and emerge from the crisis. Authorities must therefore act in lockstep on all fronts at the same time. Governments are rethinking their multi-level governance and re-evaluating their regional growth goals due to flexibility and adaptation requirements. Therefore, there is a dire need to understand how key nations such as China, India, the United States, Italy, Europe, Japan, France, Spain, Korea respond to the COVID 19 Pandemic regarding global energy.
The global arena is fast exploring sustainable development, Renewable energy, energy production in advancing the global economy from its low figures to higher energy demand by strategizing on global economic recovery within the key endemic regions as identified earlier in this paper on the Thesis section.
COVID-19 has posed substantial challenges to the energy industry. Pandemics may lead to new behaviors and societal structures, influencing energy consumption. Pandemic patterns and response attempts cause regional and chronological variations to manifest gradually. The consequences and challenges of COVID-19 outbreaks on energy usage rates and insights gained, and fresh opportunities are discussed in this article. The debate on energy-related problems is organized into four sections: the emergency and its consequences, environmental consequences and energy demand stabilization, recuperating energy demands, and lessons and prospects. As per available records/knowledge, changes in energy demand are contrasted and analyzed from numerous angles. Even though total energy consumption is decreasing, the regional and temporal fluctuations are complex. The energy intensity has changed, the additional energy required to battle COVID-19 is not trivial in terms of stabilizing energy consumption, and the energy recovery in various places differs significantly. The allocation and discovery of energy-related emerging prospects for the post-pandemic period have been a critical concern. This research might point to the right path for enhancing energy efficiency and encouraging energy conservation.
The disaster damaged the energy sector, hampered international transit, economic activity, and commerce. The current examination of daily data through mid-April, released in the Global Energy Assessment 2020, reveals that nations in complete lockdown have an average weekly decrease of 25%, while those in partial lockdown have an average weekly drop of 18% (Le Quéré, p.648). The pandemic’s consequences for power generation and renewable energy transformations are still being worked out, but critical dimensions stand out: Energy security is more important than ever for contemporary civilizations; renewable and clean energy transformations must be at the lead of stimulus measures and economic restoration. The IEA is working to deliver data, research, and real-world solutions to assist the current administration with these issues and construct sustainable and resilient power sources in all of these sectors. A worldwide health and economic disaster on a scale never seen before.
Mobility – which accounts for 57 percent of world oil consumption – fell to an all-time low in early 2020 due to global lockdown measures imposed in response to the Covid-19 crisis (Chofreh et al., p.979). By the end of March, worldwide average road transportation activity had decreased to almost half of its 2019 level in places where lockdowns were in effect. Furthermore, despite most countries’ lockdown measures lasting less than a month, worldwide electricity usage declined by 2.5 percent in the first three months of 2020. Temporary shutdowns utilized less energy than full lockdowns, which reduced energy usage by up to 20%. When meteorological conditions were considered, total shutdown reduced daily electricity usage by an average of 15% in India, France, the U.K., Spain, Italy, and the northwest U.S. (Chofreh et al., p.979). The most significant effects have indeed been felt in nations that have enacted stringent policies, and industries account for a higher portion of the GDP. Elavarasan explains that almost every long-term financial has been hampered by lockdowns, mainly due to limitations on the mobility of people or products or a disturbance in the supply of machinery or equipment. Less income due to lower energy usage in the nation and more uncertain forecasts for these factors in the following years will substantially influence investment spending in 2020, notably in the oil sector (Chakraborty, p.123).
The COVID 19 pandemic can disrupt the transition to renewable energy by affecting the whole economic structure via changes in consumer behavior and tastes, and legislative changes. COVID-19 is expected to compel a global shift to a “low-contact” economy, according to one of their assumptions. Activities that do not need physical contact or are deemed safe will thrive. The issue then becomes whether this low-contact business will also be low-carbon. According to many academics, rebalancing activities might result in different energy usage and total energy mix. While it is hard to anticipate the outcome in terms of primary energy sources, these advances are expected to hasten the transition to electrification, which is the most viable energy bearer for economic growth decarbonization. Digital technologies such as Netflix and Amazon are used primarily for working and personal purposes; their energy source is electricity. Public transit time, traffic, and transportation emissions may all be avoided to some extent while doing office work. Domestic power loads, oil demands, and output will all be affected if any or all of these modifications continue after the lockdowns are lifted. Prolonged stays at home influence both power and transportation demand. In general, less travel necessitates fewer incentives to acquire a vehicle, lowering reliance on oil supplies. Chakraborty agrees that staying at home has at least a twofold effect on electricity. First, domestic power consumption rises when individuals spend more time at home, store more foodstuff in their freezers, and utilize home cooling equipment, which is likely less effective than workplace cooling. There would be an upsurge in implementing decentralized energy supplies technologies if they offered the prospect of lowering household bills. Second, since home manufacturing avoids engagement and physical touch, there is a rise in homemade items. As a result, homemade power (rooftop solar) may become more popular. As a result, there is a tendency toward increased power usage, with a growing amount of energy coming from local resources.
The study will analyze how different regions have established practical economic progression amidst the declining energy demand and production in 2020. Studying the demand and consumption of different energy sectors in the world today would be a grave concept that will outline the limitations and relaxations of different countries during the COVID 19 disease outbreak. As the number of deaths in these endemic areas rises, several strategic steps have been implemented to halt the pandemic’s progress; however, its economic impact on energy consumption is progressively becoming an alarming issue that needs proper analysis and recommendations to improve the energy output level in the economic statistics. Therefore, in this context, different states will emulate or instead learn from the study results, thereby issuing a proper insight into how other nations could deal with the pandemic within the energy context and political context.
The research topic, background, research question, and hypothesis were all stated in the introductory chapter. The following chapter examines the literature on the epidemic and different endemic regions’ reactions. Then, the study paradigm, design, procedures, and data collection will be presented in a methodology chapter. Next, the next chapter will cover the analysis and findings section. Following the analysis, a chapter will be dedicated to discussing the results. Finally, the paper’s conclusion is presented in the final part.
Governments and emergency responders concentrate on urgent needs as the coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemic continues: increasing hospital capacity, managing hunger, and safeguarding businesses and people from bankruptcy and insolvency. This research section qualitatively analyses different energy sectors such as oil, electricity, natural gas, and coal in different countries such as France, Japan, and Korea, among other countries.
Lockdowns started to restrict movement in China. The nation was initially hit by the Covid 19 epidemic at the end of January, leading to a more than 13% decline in oil sales in the same period in 2019. Refinery output and trade figures from China’s statistics show a 20 percent drop in overall oil consumption in February compared to February 2019. According to International Energy Agency (IEA), the dip was primarily due to a 33 percent drop in oil demand. In comparison, consumption of aviation kerosene fell by 28 percent as aviation activities declined in February (IEA, p.14). In March, activity increased due to removing restrictions in various sectors. Nevertheless, studies estimate that China’s oil demand in March 2020 would be 22% lower than in March 2019 (IEA, 2021).
Gasoline was the highest absolute market reduction due to Covid 19 control measures. In the weeks after implementing lockdowns or other limits in the world’s major cities, traffic dropped drastically. Peak traffic in cities including Los Angeles, Istanbul, Mumbai, Rio de Janeiro, New York, Paris, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, and Toronto plummeted by 50% to 60% in mid-March TomTom figures (IEA). According to observational data, gasoline usage in the U.K. and France decreased by 70% during the shutdown period. Reduced mobility is predicted to reduce global gasoline consumption by 1.7 M containers per day in Quarter 1 2020, compared to Q1 2019 (IEA, 2021). Due to slower company expansion and transit constraints on rail and bus, diesel use decreased by 1.5 mb/d (IEA, p.16).
Shutdowns and a drop in market confidence in Q1 2020 slowed transportation and worldwide automobile sales, with significant consequences for oil demand for the remainder of the year. China’s car revenue fell 82 percent in February compared to the previous year before rebounding to 48 percent below 2019 rates in March (IEA, p.16). Car demands in the E.U. decreased by 55% compared to the previous year in March. Similarly, the demands on electric vehicles (E.V.) sparked its growth in the E.U., thus hitting new records across countries with the carbon emissions control in 2020 supporting its sales (IEA, 2021).
In Europe, E.V. revenue reduced even more than whole automobile sales in Q1 2020, but E.V. sales fell even more than overall car auctions in China. Car revenues in the U.S. decreased by 38% in March, while sales fell by 50% in India in the equivalent month. Throughout the rest of 2020, lower automobile sales will influence fuel demand. Since fuel consumption objectives are in place, the decline in automobile sales hinders increases in fuel efficiency. In areas where overall fleet size is restricted, such as the E.U. and the U.K. States, this may help to mitigate reductions in gas and diesel consumption. Alternatively, delayed sales in growing regions might stifle demand growth, amplifying the effects of Covid 19 (IEA, 2021).
We expect gasoline usage to remain constrained in the second half of 2020, steadily decreasing by 590 kb/d on average, due to the overall postponement of significant incidents such as the Tokyo Olympic Games and the reality that specific initiatives to minimize usage are expected to remain in place in some states. As a result, we anticipate a drop in gasoline consumption of 11% in 2020, or 2.9 million barrels per day (IEA, 2021). In 2020, global oil usage was predicted to fall to 9.3 million barrels per day, down from 9.4 million barrels per day in 2019. In addition, containment policies have virtually halted global migration in 187 nations and regions. As a result, demand is expected to be 29 mb/d lower in April than a year ago, dropping to levels in 1995 (IEA, p.15).
Moreover, demand is predicted to be 23.1 mb/d lower in Q2 2020 than in Q2 2019. As markets emerge from control and energy levels increase, the rebound in the mid-2020s is expected to be modest. However, demand is unlikely to return to pre-crisis proportions by the close of the year, with Dec forecasted to be 2.7 mb/d lower than December 2019 (IEA, p.15).
Diesel fuel usage is likely influenced by the exact causes, although not to the same amount. Rather than being utilized in passenger automobiles, a large portion of worldwide diesel consumption is used to move commodities through trucks and ships or in the industrial sector. While containment has undoubtedly impacted demand, numerous fundamental activities and sectors have stayed open due to stores closing in many nations, creating a demand floor (Ibn-Mohammed, 105169). In addition, the International Maritime Group’s sulfur limits on oil products, which went into effect at the start of the year and expanded diesel usage in the shipping sector, helped to offset some of the loss. Increasing temperature conditions in the northern hemisphere, on the other hand, resulted in reduced diesel consumption for warming than in 2019. Overall, diesel usage will decrease by two mb/d by 2020 (7 percent) (IEA, 2021).
According to the International Air Transport Association, airline capacity utilization is predicted to be 65 % less in Q2 2020, 40 % less in Q3 2020, and 10% lower in Q4 2020. As a result, world travel revenues decreased 70% from a year before the start of April, according to figures (IEA, 2021). Furthermore, in comparison to 2019, we anticipate a 20% drop in aircraft and kerosene sales. Consequently, the request is anticipated to fall by 26% in 2020, to 2.1 million barrels per day (mb/d) (IEA, p.16).
Covid 19 standard precautions will affect other petroleum by-products such as LPG, naphtha, ethane, and residual fuel. However, the effect will be less severe than petrol, diesel, and aviation fuel. Due to the rising consumer market for packages and personal protective equipment (PPE), demand for the particular petrochemical sector is growing, with substantial potential for increased PET consumption.
In the oil prediction, the duration of the Covid 19 pandemic and the severity of the ultimate restoration of economic activity are significant variables. A shorter lockup period and a robust economic comeback in the second part of 2020 might bring the yearly reduction in oil consumption down to 6.5 million barrels per day (IEA, 2021). Recent developments in China illustrate that gasoline consumption may be bolstered by a refusal to utilize public transit. Similarly, suppose a new wave of Covid 19 happens in the latter part of 2020, restricting activity and oil consumption for most of 2020. In that case, reductions in oil demand might be substantially more considerable (Elavarasan, p.71).
Lockdown efforts have lowered energy consumption substantially, changing the power mix as a result. Cutbacks in industrial activity greatly exceeded increases in residential consumption. The magnitude of demand drops is dependent on the length and severity of lockdowns, according to daily data gathered for more than 30 nations comprising over one-third of worldwide electrical use. We determined that a total lockdown for a month reduced consumption by 20% on aggregate, or more than 1.5 % yearly (IEA, p.25).
Because renewables’ production is relatively unaltered by demand, demand decreases have increased their proportion of power supply. All other forms of energy, such as coal, gas, and nuclear energy, saw a drop in demand. According to our forecast, global power consumption would reduce 5% in 2020, with 10% reductions in certain countries (IEA, p.21). Low-carbon power sources would continue to outperform coal-fired electricity throughout the world, expanding the advantage gained in 2019. A speedier, V-shaped economic growth would reduce the effect on electricity consumption by half, resulting in lower year-over-year coal, gas, and nuclear energy price drops. However, longer lockdowns, a weaker economic recovery, and widespread Covid 19 in underdeveloped nations might further reduce demand.
In Q1first quatre 2020, global power consumption fell by 2.5 percent, despite most nations’ lockdown restrictions lasting less than a month. China became the first country to put containment actions in mid-January and saw the world’s highest demand decline of 6.5 percent in Q1 2020 (IEA, p.25). Globally, regions affected by the lockdown measures as early as March had the lesser feel of the effects. The electricity demand in Korea, Europe, Japan, and the United States declined highly associated with the earlier year same period; this was not just because of COVID 19 but also the temperatures in that period were warmer than in 2019 (IEA, p.21).
Partial lockdowns had less power usage than complete shutdowns, reducing demand by 20% or more. In France, the United Kingdom, India, Spain, Italy, and the U.S. northwest, complete lockdowns lowered daily power usage by at least 15% once weather impacts were taken into account (IEA, 2021). The most significant effects have been felt in nations that have enacted stringent policies and services account for a higher GDP. These are the circumstances in Italy, where electricity consumption has dropped by much more than 25% (IEA, 2021). During early containment stages in Europe and the United States and continuing efforts in Japan, partial closure efforts had a minor effect on power use, up to 10% at most (IEA, 26).
Variations in how and when energy is used during shutdowns have changed electricity consumption throughout the day in certain areas, with weekday patterns increasingly approximating those observed exclusively on Sundays (IEA, 2021). Spain’s hourly power consumption figures show these dramatic shifts in daily patterns, owing to strict lockdown restrictions that have drastically curtailed industrial and commercial activity. Nevertheless, weekend trends are pretty constant, with domestic demand driving most of them.
Lockdown restrictions have had the most significant impact on the industrial sector, with retail, office, hotel, education, and tourist activity in many major countries almost entirely shut down. As the March continued, average workday electrical demand for services decreased significantly throughout the European Union’s most afflicted economies. Italy, Europe’s hardest-hit nation, had drops of up to 75% compared to last year (IEA, 2021). On average, consumption was less considerable in the industrial sector. Many businesses have been able to keep running due to preventative precautions taken to safeguard employees. The most significant demand reduction occurred in China’s industrial sector. Manufacturing and construction demand (which accounted for 68 percent of the overall market in 2019) fell by 12% (IEA, p.28).
As a result of the lockdown efforts, most countries have seen a significant rise in electricity used at home. In addition, most individuals spend so much time doing more things around the house, such as working remotely. Many European regions spent up to 40% more at home in the last two weeks of March and April than they did the same time the previous year. In 2020, we thought global power consumption would drop by 5%. As many as eight times as many people would lose their jobs because of the global financial downturn in 2009. The steady growth in China and India was enough to cancel out the declines in other parts of the world in 2009 (IEA, 2021).
However, when it came to 2020, China and India were not the same as in 2017. They were already cutting back on how much electricity they used, but the Covid 19 situation was wreaking havoc on both of them. As all sectors of the economy start up again, a faster recovery would cut power use by 2% in 2020 (IEA, 2021). The decline might be more significant than 5% if Covid 19 is introduced more broadly in Latin America, Africa, and other parts of the developing world and another round in developed markets this fall. Lockdown methods don’t significantly impact power use in countries that rely more on the industry than other countries. For instance, the market used more than 60% of China’s energy in 2019, while only 10% was used for activities. This shows why it has a relatively small influence on overall electricity usage. Just 20% of the power is used in the U.S. (IEA, 2021). comes from industrial sources. As a comparison, about 40% of the economy comprises services. This means that shutdown policies will significantly impact energy needs because they are the hardest hit non-essential operations. This means that Europe is likely to take the brunt of the damage because its economy is heavily dependent on the industry.
Renewables now make up more of the power made because of the lockdown measures and less electricity. Because of this, global electricity output fell 2.6% in the first three months (Q1) of 2020 than in the same three months of 2019 (IEA, 2021). On the other hand, wind power and solar (P.V.) production from new projects rose by more than double digits over the last year. As a result, renewable energy accounted for roughly 28% of total power generation in Q1 2020, up above 26% in Q1 2019 (IEA, 2021).
So many other power sources fell in the first quarters of 2020, except for alternatives, which are typically unaffected by electricity consumption. Nuclear power production decreased by 3% due to decreasing demand and fewer reactors active in certain areas. However, low-carbon production rose overall, cutting the need for fossil-fuel-based power by over 3% (IEA, 2021). Gas-fired power climbed by 4%, helped by low natural gas costs in markets throughout the globe (IEA, 2021). Specific markets for the first-time switch options between coal to gas based on existing fuel prices.
In the first quatre (Q1) 2020, all places that employed lockdown actions saw a substantial swing toward low-carbon energy sources. China, which plays the most crucial role in coal-fired power, had the most significant drop in coal-fired energy production, over 100 TWh, driving the global downturn. In China, massive lockdowns prolonged February and March, resulting in huge reductions. In the Euro Zone, the percentage of renewables in energy production increased in the weeks after the lockdown due to decreased demand, which pushed gas and coal out of the energy portfolio. In the weeks after the installation of shutdown limits, the decline of coal-fired electricity in the United States augmented. While gas-fired production fell slightly, renewable energy production increased. Due to reduced demand, cheaper energy, and a 20% rise in wind or solar P.V. generation, coal-fired electricity in the U.S. declined by one-third in Q1 2020 compared to Q1 2019 (IEA, 2021). Coal-fired production and its part of the energy portfolio declined dramatically from Q1 2019 to Q1 2020 due to state-wide initiatives, bringing the proportions of coal and renewables in energy production to their lowest levels ever.
According to a U-shaped revival, low-carbon power sources will overtake coal-fired output in the globe by 2020. In 2020, overall output was expected to reduce by 5%, resulting in the highest level of electricity production on record. After regaining the lead, low-carbon solutions would be 6th-grade steps ahead of coal by 2019 (IEA, 2021). Renewables would achieve the maximum production and market share, with future initiatives more than accounting for decreasing nuclear power generation. Wind and solar power are predicted to increase their share of total generation to roughly 9% in 2020, more than twice what it was in 2015. This is due to new projects that have been established in recent years. This year, coal-fired electricity would be the worst hit, with output dropping 10% by 2020 (IEA, 2021). Gas-fired power would also be heavily impacted, with annual reductions of roughly 7%, the biggest on record (IEA, 2021).
A quicker recovery would increase power consumption, which would increase demand for all types of electricity. There will remain a significant decline in coal and gas-fired energy, but it will be less than half of before. In addition, there will be a rise in renewable energy production as more initiatives, particularly solar P.V. plants, are completed. Throughout 2020, nuclear power production would almost equal 2019 (IEA, 2021). On the other hand, a slower recovery would put even more deflationary pressure on the coal, gas, and nuclear power, resulting in a more significant shift toward renewable energy in the total power mix, as provided as their production is fully integrated.
Since the installation of state-wide lockdowns, U.S. natural gas usage looks to be more robust. Around mid-March and mid-April, industrial demand decreased 6%, while gas-fired energy production grew 8% (IEA, p. 20). In mid-April, GAIL recorded a 30% drop in demand since the nationwide lockdown but predicted a near-term rebound as the fertilizer sector – the biggest user of natural gas – prepares for the planting season (IEA, 2021).
According to our forecasts, global natural gas consumption may fall by 5% in 2020 (IEA, p.20). As a result, natural gas consumption is less vulnerable to the decline in the sales of petroleum products. But it nevertheless comes as a tremendous shock to a gas business accustomed to rapid demand growth. This is the first year in which demand had decreased since 2009 when it decreased by 2 percent, and the largest since natural gas demand increased dramatically in the latter half of the twentieth century when it increased significantly. Natural gas consumption fell by 13 percent in 1931 and by 7 percent the year before, a trend that continued throughout the earlier 1930s Great Depression (IEA, p.21). Then, the Us was the world’s sole significant consumer and producer of natural gas; presently, gas accounts for well over 20% of primary worldwide consumption (IEA, p.21). In 2020, natural gas usage was predicted to dip across sectors and regions, but most noticeably in power generation (IEA, p.21).
Demand for gas in energy production will fall by roughly 7%, accounting for over 60% of the worldwide demand decline (IEA, 2021). The fall in energy demand from trade and business would be more severe in Europe, where non-fossil fuel production is more robust. Gas-fired generating is less affected by low natural energy prices in North America. According to Woertz, extended gas lockdowns in places like the Mideast or North Africa would further reduce the global gas supply.
According to IEA, the industrial sector is down approximately 25% globally, roughly 5%. Aside from the direct effect of lockdowns, the downturn in consumer expenditure for manufactured products also impacts gas usage in export-dependent countries, particularly Asia. The energy industry accounts for roughly 10% of the 4% decline in world gas consumption (IEA, 2021). Global supply has decreased, reducing gas demands for upstream activities, energy transformation (refining), and transit (pipeline gas compression).
It is projected that mild temperatures will have the most significant impact on residential and business gas consumption in Q1 2020, with non-heating users losing some demand during lockout times. However, less lockdown time in Europe and North America would lower the negative consequences on Asian industrial sectors and gas exporting countries, resulting in a 2.7 percent fall in natural gas demand instead of 5% (IEA, p.21).
The Covid 19 epidemic has reduced global power usage and industrial output, lowering coal use. The magnitude of the economic effects and pace of recovery in the significant coal-consuming countries will ascertain the global coal use decline in 2020. Despite a sluggish recovery after the February lockout, China’s coal sales will shrink by 5% in 2020 (IEA, p.18). The electrical grid is rich with low-cost hydroelectric, solar, wind, and nuclear energy sources. Coal power generators may benefit from a more favorable dispatch if it is implemented.
In India, where industrial development and electricity output is declining, coal consumption is anticipated to fall even more. The decline in coal consumption will compel coal utilization for the second time in a row. As a result, global coal consumption will fall sharply in 2020. In addition, low energy demand, notably in Malaysia and Thailand, has reduced coal power output in Southeast Asia, with the most substantial recent expansion. As a result, we estimate a 25% drop in U.S. coal consumption, a 20% drop in E.U. coal demand, and a 5%-10% drop in Korean and Japanese coal demand (IEA, p.17).
Currently, coal has the most uncertain future of all fuels. This is because its usage is confined in the power industry and is highly correlated with electricity consumption. Coal is the dominant energy source in India and China, the world’s largest and third-largest power users, respectively. Furthermore, low-carbon fuel sources such as hydroelectricity, wind power, solar energy, and nuclear energy are less affected by the Covid 19 issue. As a result, changes in economic activity have a significant impact on coal-fired power generation and total coal consumption.
For instance, global coal usage might fall by half if China and other major coal users recover faster. Densely populated areas like Europe and the U.S. would have double-digit percentage losses, whereas Japan and Korea would see single-digit declines. In other countries, including Southeast Asia, powered by Indonesia and Vietnam, speedier recovery may increase coal consumption. Concerning 2020 coal trends, the Chinese government has vowed to undertake budgetary stimulus. The intensity and form of the stimulus might substantially impact China’s and hence the world’s coal usage patterns.
This research paper involves a qualitative analysis of different paradigms related to COVID-19 and responses by different nations regarding energy production and consumption globally. The qualitative analysis involves surveys from online publications that posits different perspectives and figures aligning with the objectives and research questions written herein. The research design is a correlational survey technique that satisfies different statistical analysis parameters and qualitative analysis of this research topic.
The research utilizes secondary data from websites, books, reports, and journals, giving perspectives on the energy demand and its influence on today’s world as affected by the COVID 19 pandemic. The secondary data sources are qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed, so the validity is much more coherent and relevant to our topic of study. The qualitative data format gives a variable analysis on COVID 19 on energy globally. The distinctness is well given by sustainability and clean energy features with the reducing economy. Therefore, the research cumulatively gives a qualitative and quantitative analysis of different regions in their reasons for falling or instead declining energy consumption and demand globally and how they wish to correct such measures in favor of the pandemic guidelines and economic regression/ progression.
The COVID-19 pandemic, according to Klemes et al., has produced both obstacles and possibilities for the transformation. He looks at these issues via three lenses: economic circumstances, legacy fossil fuel use, and geopolitics. He claims that stimulus spending should be focused first and foremost on things that help the economy recover quickly. Some expenditures, such as subsidies for energy efficiency in residential structures, assist in speeding up the construction sector’s recovery while simultaneously reducing CO2 emissions, while others may conflict with these goals. Speeding up the shift should not come at the price of a longer recovery, as this might lead to supply/demand mismatches, putting both utilization of renewable energy systems at risk (Jiang et al., p.116441). Finally, a reduced oil price aided the shift during the epidemic by reducing fuel legacy gasoline and diesel fuel subsidies. They have, however, harmed oil company profitability and, as a result, the energy revolution, either directly through slower growth by oil companies in low-carbon innovations and alternative sectors such as solar, or indirectly through lower dividend payouts that could be immersed in low carbon energies.
Lower oil prices also narrow the operational cost gap between gasoline/diesel cars and electric vehicles (E.V.s), making E.V.s less viable. Recessions also hinder the renewal of the global vehicle fleet, resulting in older and less efficient vehicles being on the road for longer. In the following months, two major geopolitical events will influence the energy transition: the November election in the United States and ties between the United States and China. The outbreak heightened tensions between the two countries, speeding up and complicating competition, reflected in the energy industry. Kalinowski puts it that, While China has openly stated its desire to dominate green technologies, it would revert to its vast coal reserves if challenged. COVID-19, the author believes, has harmed the energy transition by reducing investments, lowering fossil fuel costs, and worsening geopolitical conditions. On that note, Kumar (p.150349) suggests that it may have increased awareness of the necessity to combat greenhouse gases in the long term.
On the other hand, Richard Black claims that the issue isn’t whether the coronavirus would slow down the world’s clean-energy transition but if the necessity to ‘build back better’ will speed it up. At the top levels, Black observes, there is no perceived tension between the immediate need to revive the economy after the shutdown and the longer-term requirement to decarbonize: they are increasingly regarded as two sides of a coin. Four major elements are at play, according to Black. According to Lott, all these, but especially their interrelationships, imply that the COVID-19 issue will accelerate the transition from fossil fuels to a zero-carbon society (p.2). The first is the simple experience in the actual world. Renewables are steadily undercutting gas and coal power, accelerating the gutting out of the existing energy system. Money is the second element to consider.
Compared to the post-crash world of 2009, fossils seem unsafe, while ‘clean’ appears to be secure. In many countries, investing in solar or wind power essentially guarantees single-digit returns for up to 25 years — not very appealing to high-risk investors, but ideal as a basis for risk-averse vehicles like pension funds. The third aspect advocates for the clean-energy transition’s power to score the war of ideas on issues other than global warming and the need for emission reductions (Lott, p.3). Public sentiment is the fourth component. In many countries, there are clear indicators that the people will not tolerate governments pouring money into firms like airline companies and oil majors that seem to be doing well when times are good but come rushing cap in hand when things are bad. The author claims that none of these four variables would have been sufficient on their own to propel COVID-19 into a low-carbon vision, but when taken together, they are — not in every nation or industry, but sufficient to make a significant impact.
Discussion And findings
The scholars cited above, in particular, underline the critical role of reliable and sustainable energy infrastructure in a modern, economical, and adaptable society (Molyneaux, p. 1068). The gains already gained by the energy revolution should be recognized and built upon in post-COVID response and recovery; this is true worldwide, but the emissions reductions strategy process should be supported notably in undeveloped countries. Investment in viable electricity production and infrastructure has both short- and long-term gains, attributing to a more inclusionary low carbon changeover path, with benefits distributed gradually over individuals and businesses in developed and emerging nations concerning GDP, work opportunities, and income disparity reduction.
According to William Todts, the beginnings of massive transformation in the transportation industry were already visible in recent years, but COVID-19 will expedite and render those trends permanent (Rankin, p.3). Cities, the automobile industry, and aviation, according to Todts, will be the key battlegrounds. Cities all around Europe, for example, are taking bold steps to encourage cycling and walking while reducing automobile traffic (Rankin, p.2). Until then, millions of workers work remotely. This implies that there is genuinely open space available for the first time, but this will not last: vehicles or bicycles will use this space available, and politicians’ option is simple: safeguard cities from polluted air, even if it means dedicating more open areas to pedestrian, cycling, and public transportation. The direct consequences of such changes on oil consumption are likely to be small. Still, the indirect implications might be considerably more enormous as towns discreetly prepare to lock their entrances to polluting automobiles. Todts contends that urbanization will contribute to a second major trend: electrification. The electric vehicle business in Europe was flourishing when COVID-19 slammed the industry to a standstill. Recent federal stimulus measures have boosted mobility rather than harmed by the crisis. The corporate vehicle market is the segment of the automobile industry where electrification is genuinely taking off. Even the situation for trucks is changing, and the author believes that 2025, when the initial E.U. truck CO2 limit goes into effect, will be a watershed moment (Rankin, 2020). In the context of aviation, COVID’s short-term consequences are enormous.
Nevertheless, aviation always rebounds to development; the kind of industry that will re-emerge this time around is less specific. Given the challenges encountered by aviation before COVID-19, it’s impossible to see companies and governments not revising their travel decisions, which could have a significant long-term impact on the sector’s profitability in Europe. Furthermore, plans for airport development are likely to be halted, and the E.U. is proposing the world’s first advanced fuels requirement for aviation.
COVID-19, according to Malcolm Keay and David Robinson, may provide an early glimpse of what most long-term forecasts for the energy sector predict, such as declining demand for fossil fuels, rising shares of energy in the final power market, increased consumer involvement, and the need for power industry versatility to enable the permeation of renewable power and handle congestion issues. The crisis has brought several new difficulties and possibilities that businesses should consider when developing their strategy. Electricity providers have had ten years to adjust to a sector that has been flipped upside down by the adoption of renewable power and technological developments; they are now beginning to build new business models. Oil and gas firms have not yet had to deal with the full impact of such a systemic shift; most say they will have enough time to adapt, relying on earnings from current operations to make the necessary changes. COVID-19 has the potential to act as a wake-up call. If there’s one takeaway, it’s that the energy sector has evolved: it’s no longer about exporting oil, gas, and power while gradually transitioning to a lower-carbon balance. Instead, we are approaching a new approach in which bottom-up (technological and economic) and top-down (political) forces are convergent, pointing to the necessity for integrated, completely decarbonized power systems, with consumer choices playing a critical role. All energy businesses’ corporate strategies must reflect this evolving new paradigm.
Research gaps and Recommendations
As predicted in this paper, power consumption has rapidly grown low, affecting the economy in most countries in the world today. Therefore, future researchers in this paper should address some of the research gaps of this paper as outlined as follows; how politics has influenced the economic progression in the energy sector during the pandemic reign and even possible future pandemics. Further, there should be an analytical concept of the policies developed that will protect energy to avoid low consumptions and demands in the future energy sector. This will be privy to future research gaps such as electromotive, Teslas, and other eco-friendly utilities and how the government intends to maximize renewable sources of energy in the future.
The COVID-19 epidemic, labeled a global health crisis, has wreaked havoc on the world economy, particularly the energy sector (Chakraborty and Maity, 2020). The use of personal automotive and other primary modes of travel has lessened significantly as an outcome of defensive measures such as transit restrictions for all but utterly required trips, closure of international borders, shift to remote learning and establishing incentives, and other initiatives (Elavarasanet al., 2020). As a result, the amount of energy output has been cut dramatically in response to decreasing global demand, as seen by the decreased production from nuclear power facilities in Europe and the United States. In addition, worries have been expressed among energy stakeholders due to the possibility that the government may make retroactive modifications to current policy frameworks, which has been anticipated. These possible alternatives in market incentives, including the current state of the financial markets, have the prospective to have a considerable influence on renewable energy funding (Ji et al., 2020). During the epidemic, available cash is redirected away from green energy project financing to bail out failing firms. As a result, a large percentage of the capital that would otherwise be accessible for renewable-energy financing is no longer available. High-priced market developers and owners have been particularly susceptible and exposed to the risk of incurring possibly more significant losses. Green investment initiatives that can be viewed as part of an industrial recovery plan and a global governmental loss reduction initiative may help relieve some of the challenges that renewable power finance schemes face. In this regard, the COVID-19 epidemic may have been the prime cause for the fossil fuel industry, laying the scene for the sector’s impending extinction.
Balacco, Gabriella, et al. “Influence of COVID-19 spread on water drinking demand: The case of Puglia region (Southern Italy).” Sustainability 12.15 (2020): 5919.
Black, R. (2020). Covid-19: Accelerating the clean-energy transition. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, OIES Energy Insights, (123).
Chakraborty, Indranil, and Prasenjit Maity. “COVID-19 outbreak: Migration, effects on society, Black, R. (2020). Covid-19: Accelerating the clean-energy transition. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, OIES Energy Insights, (123).
Chofreh, Abdoulmohammad Gholamzadeh, et al. “COVID-19 Shock: The Necessity of Rethinking about Strategic Management for Global Energy.” Chemical Engineering Transactions 88 (2021): 979-984.
Elavarasan, Rajvikram Madurai, et al. “COVID-19: Impact analysis and recommendations for power sector operation.” Applied energy 279 (2020): 115739.
Ibn-Mohammed, Taofeeq, et al. “A critical analysis of the impacts of COVID-19 on the global economy and ecosystems and opportunities for circular economy strategies.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 164 (2021): 105169.
IEA (2021), Global Energy Review 2021, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021
Ji, Q., Zhang, D. and Zhao, Y., 2020. Searching for safe-haven assets during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Review of Financial Analysis, 71, p.101526.
Jiang, Peng, Yee Van Fan, and Jiří Jaromír Klemeš. “Impacts of COVID-19 on energy demand and consumption: Challenges, lessons, and emerging opportunities.” Applied energy 285 (2021): 116441.
Kalinowski, Thomas. “The politics of climate change in a neo-developmental state: The case of South Korea.” International Political Science Review 42.1 (2021): 48-63.
Keay, Malcolm, and David Robinson. “COVID-19: glimpses of the energy future?.” Forum, COVID19 and the energy transition. No. 123. 2020.
Klemeš, Jiří Jaromír, Yee Van Fan, and Peng Jiang. “COVID‐19 pandemic facilitating energy transition opportunities.” International Journal of Energy Research (2020).
Kumar, Abhinandan, et al. “Impact of COVID-19 on greenhouse gases emissions: A critical review.” Science of The Total Environment (2021): 150349.
Le Quéré, Corinne, et al. “Temporary reduction in daily global CO 2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement.” Nature Climate Change 10.7 (2020): 647-653.
Lott, Dr Melissa C., And Dr Julio Friedmann. “Electricity Oversupply: Maximizing Zero-Carbon Power To Accelerate The Transition From Fossil Fuels.” (2020).
Molyneaux, Lynette, et al. “Measuring resilience in energy systems: Insights from a range of disciplines.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016): 1068-1079.
Rankin, J. (2020). E.U. pledges coronavirus recovery plan will not harm climate goals. The Guardian, 28.
Woertz, Eckart. “COVID-19 in the Middle East and North Africa: Reactions, vulnerabilities, prospects.” (2020): 11.
Time is precious
don’t waste it!