Energy security and sustainability in Northeast Asia
By D. V. von Hippel, Tatsujiro Suzuki, James H Williams, T. Savage, P. Hayes. 2011
222 citations recorded by the source corpus.
“Energy Security” has typically, to those involved in making energy policy, meant mostly securing access to oil and other fossil fuels. With increasingly global, diverse energy markets, however, and increasingly transnational problems resulting from energy transformation and use, old energy security rationales are less salient, and other issues, including climate change and other environmental, economic, and international considerations are becoming increasingly important. As a consequence, a more comprehensive operating definition of “Energy Security” is needed, along with a workable framework for analysis of which future energy paths or scenarios are likely to yield greater Energy Security in a broader, more comprehensive sense. Work done as a part of the Nautilus Institute's “Pacific Asia Regional Energy Security” (PARES) project developed a broader definition of Energy Security, and described an analytical framework designed to help to compare the energy security characteristics – both positive and negative – of different quantitative energy paths as developed using software tools such as the LEAP (Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning) system.
Subfields: General Energy, Pollution, Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c921ad5eaaaa7ac1aad8f09cb3a86f8d8078cede
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In General Energy
- Benjamin Sovacool
- Vlado Vivoda
- J. Jewell
- Ishan Mukherjee
- John Foster
- L. Molyneaux
- A. Cherp
- Colin Brown
In Pollution
- Vlado Vivoda
- Benjamin Sovacool
- Ishan Mukherjee
- John Foster
- L. Molyneaux
- J. Jewell
- A. Cherp
- Colin Brown
In Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
- Benjamin Sovacool
- Vlado Vivoda
- Ishan Mukherjee
- J. Jewell
- John Foster
- L. Molyneaux
- A. Cherp
- Colin Brown
Citations in the corpus
- Conceptualizing and measuring energy security: A synthesized approach (2011, background): “Still other studies, such as [20,23,34] classify “simple” indicators as those that can be expressed in “physical” or “monetary” terms, whereas “complex” indicators use diversity indices.”
- The three perspectives on energy security: intellectual history, disciplinary roots and the potential for integration (2011, background): “[51] list ‘energy supply, economic, technological, environmental, social/cultural and military/security’ dimensions of energy security.”
- Evaluating energy security in the Asia-Pacific region: A novel methodological approach (2010, methodology): “According to Von Hippel et al. (2009), there are four major challenges that need to be incorporated into a new concept of energy security: • Environment: perhaps the most serious challenge to traditional (supply securityoriented) energy security thinking; if environmental problems, such as climate…”
- Measuring resilience in energy systems: insights from a range of disciplines (2016, background): “Furthermore they have focussed on limiting the chance of, and consequences of, supply disruptions of oil [50].”
- An international assessment of energy security performance (2013, background): “Kruyt et al. (2009) proposed 24 simple and complex indicators for energy security, Von Hippel et al. (2011) argued in favor of six dimensions and more than 60 separate attributes, issues, and strategies.”