我的介绍。能源安全100周年!关于弹性能源系统的思考由Friedbert Pfluger1913年7月17日，也就是差不多整整100年前，海军部的第一任大臣温斯顿丘吉尔在英国下议院发言。他宣称，英国军舰将不再使用煤炭，而是改用煤炭为了比德国舰队更快、更节省成本。然而，这也意味着皇家海军必须用波斯石油代替国内的煤炭。在反驳反对派的批评时，他坚称，伦敦永远不应依赖于单一的国家、航线、能源或(石油)油田:“石油的安全与确定性在于多样性，而多样性是唯一的。”——丘吉尔因此概述了战争的中心主题未来所有关于能源安全的辩论能源供应多样化。 60年后的1973年10月，欧佩克的石油禁运令西方震惊。忽视了丘吉尔的警告，工业化世界已经有一段时间陷入对石油生产国的依赖，特别是来自中东的国家。现在石油价格翻了两番，经济放缓，一夜之间，世界的力量平衡发生了明显的变化:生产者在全球“南方”已经成为一个政治强国。第一次，“北方”在“石油武器”面前显得不堪一击。 在石油危机之后，能源安全成为西方工业化国家关注的核心问题。在1974年的华盛顿能源会议上，他们同意在未来能源供应中断的情况下采取一致行动。这就是所谓的战略石油储备以及国际能源机构(IEA)的形成过程，IEA是作为制衡欧佩克帝国的机构(丹尼尔耶金)。总部位于巴黎的国际能源机构没有辜负其创始人的期望。它对当今能源政策发展的分析和预测构成了科学、商业和政治的共同基础。它还提出了现在被广泛接受的能源安全的定义，即“以可承受的价格不断获得能源”。在全球化和数字化的世界里，能源的重要性只会继续增加。今天，几乎任何东西都离不开能源，无论是饮用水、电视、电脑还是电话。如果没有全球运输网络、冷却系统和商店，我们为人们提供食物和必需品的供应链就会失灵。因此，不间断的能源供应变得更加重要。能源安全是对每个现代社会来说，这都是生死攸关的问题。在过去的十年里，可再生能源的出现——它们至少可以满足全球2%的能源需求(不包括水力发电)——几乎没有削弱这种主导地位化石燃料。即使到2035年，大约80%的能源需求将由石油、天然气和煤炭来满足(顺便说一下，它们所占比例几乎相等)(IEA《2012年世界能源展望》)。因此，在可预见的未来，国际能源安全将继续依赖于不间断的化石燃料供应。以可承受的价格保障供应是一个极其复杂和脆弱的问题，因此持续面临风险。在这种情况下，我们可以区分七个主要的风险因素:能源安全的七个风险因素 1. 能源生产国的战争、危机和冲突可能导致影响全球经济的生产和能源供应中断。1979年的伊朗革命，1990/91年的第一次海湾战争例如，2011年解放战争导致利比亚石油生产完全停止，这一切都对供应链、能源价格以及进口国的经济形势产生了巨大影响。同样，2002年乌戈•查韦斯(Hugo Chavez)领导下的委内瑞拉大罢工或2003年的伊拉克战争也产生了严重影响，并起到了推波助澜的作用——此外还有其他一些因素，我们将在后面讨论油价持续飙升，最终达到每桶140美元，加剧了全球经济危机。2. 由于片面依赖能源生产国而造成的政治敲诈是以可承受的价格不间断供应能源的另一个危险因素。俄罗斯对欧洲部分地区，尤其是中欧和东欧国家的天然气供应占据主导地位，这意味着天然气价格不再由供需机制决定，而是由政治决定，取决于各自政府的良好表现。2005/06年和2009年俄罗斯对乌克兰的天然气供应中断，在几个中欧国家引发了供应危机，尽管其实际影响不及对俄罗斯大规模示威的担忧。这两起天然气危机不应由俄罗斯单方面承担责任，它们引发了欧洲围绕能源安全问题的激烈讨论，并为通过“南部走廊”从里海地区提供替代供应、实现天然气行业更多样化的计划提供了新的动力。除此之外，他们还促成了一项真正的欧洲能源政策的出台，并任命了一位合适的欧盟能源专员(冈瑟厄廷格)。3.迫在眉睫的重新国有化——甚至是能源帝国主义——如今是一个主要基于供需相互作用的全球供应体系的真正威胁。超过80%的常规石油和天然气储备是由国有或半国有的能源公司生产的，即在美国，他们直接或间接地依赖于各自国家的政治领导人，而这些领导人非常清楚他们所控制的资源的政治意义。到2035年，全球能源需求将增长三分之一。在世界人口急剧增长和能源需求旺盛的背景下，自然资源日益稀缺，这将使人们更有可能利用自己的财富来达到民族主义甚至帝国主义的目的。中国在全球范围内获取能源和原材料的决心，是21世纪初最重要的现象之一。4. 恐怖分子袭击能源基础设施。在石油和液化天然气运输船的航线上，以及在管道和石油钻井平台上，也可能以可承受的成本对供应安全构成威胁。2006年，尼日利亚尼日尔三角洲的恐怖分子导致石油产量大幅下降。在穆巴拉克下台后的一年里，埃及和以色列之间的阿里-阿什克伦管道遭到13次袭击，给以色列的能源安全带来了严重后果。以色列40%的物资依赖埃及;而邻国约旦的这一数字是80%。就在2013年1月，伊斯兰恐怖分子袭击了英国石油公司(BP)在阿尔及利亚沙漠的石油生产，并绑架了该公司的员工。海峡周围的任何地方——从马六甲海峡到霍尔木兹海峡，再到也门和索马里之间的曼德布海峡——恐怖分子和海盗潜伏着，经常是相互勾结的。5.针对关键能源基础设施的网络恐怖主义，对能源安全构成了越来越大、往往被低估的危险。Frank Umbach最近指出，尽管美国军方被迫削减预算，但五角大楼的网络司令部从900人增加到4900人。美国总统奥巴马最近警告说，美国的敌人可能试图破坏美国的能源基础设施，特别是电网。美国国家情报局(US national intelligence service)局长詹姆斯•克拉珀(James Clapper)补充称，此类攻击构成了“最直接的威胁”。“如果网络攻击成功地破坏了核电站的冷却系统会怎样?”2012年，奥地利作家马克埃尔斯伯格(Marc Elsberg)在FAZ/慕尼黑安全论坛(Forum FAZ/ Munich Security Conference)上发表了一部关于网络恐怖主义对欧洲电力供应的威胁的政治惊悚小说。 6.自然灾害是供应安全的真正威胁，正如2005年卡特里娜飓风和丽塔飓风所证明的那样。这些风暴摧毁了墨西哥湾约170个海上石油平台。美国近三分之一的石油生产和炼油能力丧失，对全国各地的供应造成了深远而持久的影响。更糟糕的是2011年3月11日日本地震和随之而来的海啸的后果:它们导致了成千上万人的死亡和福岛第一核电站“超越设计基础的事故”，给日本社会和经济带来了巨大的后果。除了如此严重的灾难外，再保险公司报告说，毁灭性的洪水和风暴的数量正在上升——这不仅仅是气候变化造成的后果。像这样的自然灾害通常伴随着短期或长期的能源供应中断。这些威胁将随着气候变化的加剧而加剧:2012年10月的飓风桑迪仅在纽约就夺去了6条生命，迫使37.5万人疏散，800万人断电数日，这仅仅是一个前奏。就在几年前，这么大的风暴出现在遥远的北方还是不可想象的。气候变化也给世界其他地区带来了新的危险，对人类和能源供应都是如此:例如，当西伯利亚的永久冻土带永远变暖时，对俄罗斯意味着什么?当喜马拉雅冰川继续融化，大型水电站不再生产足够的电力时，对中国城市的供应将会有什么后果?

I. Introduction

Energy Security Turns 100!

Thoughts on resilient energy systems

By Friedbert Pflger

On July 17, 1913, almost exactly 100 years ago, the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, took the floor of the British House  of Commons. British warships, he proclaimed, would no longer be powered by coal, but by

oil instead in order to become faster and more cost-efficient than the German fleet. This, however, also meant that the Royal Navy had to substitute domestic coal with Persian oil.

Countering the critics in the opposition, he insisted that London should never become dependent on a single country, route, energy source or (oil)  field: “Safety and certainty in  oil lie in variety, and variety alone.” – Churchill had thereby outlined the central theme for

all future debates on energy security: the

diversification of energy supplies.

Sixty years later, in October 1973, OPEC’s oil embargo shocked the West. Neglecting Churchill’s warning, the industrialized world had, for some time already, fallen into dependence on oil-producing countries, particularly from the Middle East. Now oil

prices quadrupled, the economy slowed down and overnight it became clear that the world’s power balance had shifted: the producers

in the global “South” had become a political power. For the first time, the “North” appeared vulnerable to the “oil weapon”.

In the wake of the Oil Crisis, energy security became the core concern for the industrialized Western nations. At the 1974 Washington Energy Conference, they agreed on a concerted reaction in the event of future disruptions of energy supplies. This is how, among other things, the so-called strategic oil reserves came about, as well as the International Energy Agency (IEA), which was set up as an institutional counterweight to the OPEC-empire (Daniel Yergin). The IEA, based in Paris, lived up to its founders’ expectations. Its analyses and forecasts of developments in energy policy today form a common base for science, business and politics alike. It also put forth the now widely accepted definition  of energy security as “an uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price.”

The importance of energy has only continued to increase in a globalized and digitalized world. Today, hardly anything is conceivable anymore without energy, be it drinking  water, television, computers, or phones.

In the absence of the global network of transportation, cooling systems and stores, our supply chains providing people with food and essential goods would fail. Therefore, the uninterrupted supply of energy has become  all the more important. Energy security is

a matter of life or death for every modern society. The advent of renewable forms of energy in the last decade – they can at least cover about two percent of the global energy demand (excluding hydro-power) – has barely done anything to diminish the dominance

of fossil fuels. Even by 2035, around eighty percent of the energy demand will be satisfied by oil, natural gas and coal (in almost equal shares, by the way) (IEA World Energy  Outlook 2012).

Energy security in the international context will therefore continue to depend on uninterrupted supplies of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.

              Supply security at an affordable price is an extremely complex and fragile matter, and hence continuously at risk. In this context, we can distinguish seven central risk factors:

SEVEN RISK FACTORS FOR ENERGY SECURITY

1. Wars, crises and conflict in energy- producing countries can lead to disruptions of production and supply of energy that affect the global economy. The Iranian Revolution  of 1979, the First Gulf War of 1990/91 or the

complete halt of the Libyan oil production as a consequence of the war of liberation of 2011, for example, all had drastic effects on supply chains, energy prices and, as a consequence, the economic situation in importing countries. Similarly, the general strike in Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela of 2002 or the Iraq War of 2003 had serious effects and contributed – alongside other factors that will be discussed later –

to a continued surge of the oil price, which eventually hit $140 per barrel, exacerbating the global economic crisis.

2. Political extortion as a consequence of a one-sided dependence on an energy producer is another risk factor for an uninterrupted supply of energy at an affordable price. The dominance of Russian gas supplies to parts of Europe, in particular the Central and Eastern European countries, meant that gas prices were no longer determined via supply and demand mechanisms, but decided politically, depending on good conduct by the respective government. The disruptions of Russian gas supplies to the Ukraine of 2005/06 and 2009 caused a supply crisis in several Central European countries, even though its actual effect was outmatched by the fears of a massive demonstration of power by Russia.

The two gas crises, which Moscow should not be blamed for one-sidedly, sparked an intensification of European discussions over energy security and gave new impetus to plans for more diversification of the gas sector through alternative supplies from the Caspian region via the “Southern Corridor”. In addition to that, they led to the inception of a genuine European energy policy and the appointment of a proper EU-Commissioner for energy (Gnther Oettinger).

3. An impending re-nationalization – and even energy imperialism – today are real threats  for a global supply system based primarily on the interplay of supply and demand. More than eighty percent of conventional reserves  of oil and natural gas are produced by state-  or semi-state-owned energy companies, i.e., they are directly or indirectly dependent on  the political leaders of that respective country, who are well aware of the political relevance of the resources they control. Increasing scarcity of natural resources against the backdrop of a dramatic growth of the world’s population and its thirst for energy – global demand will increase by one third by 2035 –will make it  all the more tempting to use one’s riches for nationalist, or even imperialist, ends. China’s determination in securing access to sources  of energy and raw materials across the entire globe ranks among the most significant phenomena of the early twenty-first century.

4. Terrorist attacks against energy infrastructure, i.e., on the routes of oil and LNG tankers as well as on pipelines and oil rigs, can also pose a threat to supply security at an affordable cost. In 2006, terrorists in  the Niger-Delta (in Nigeria) caused a dramatic reduction in oil production. The Arish-Ashkelon pipeline between Egypt and Israel was  attacked 13 times in the year following the fall of Mubarak, with dramatic consequences for Israel’s energy security. Forty percent of Israel’s supplies depend on Egypt; for neighbouring Jordan that figure is eighty percent. As recent as January 2013, Islamist terrorists attacked BP’s oil production in the Algerian desert and kidnapped employees of that company. Anywhere around straits – from the Strait of Malacca to the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab-el-Mandeb between Yemen and Somalia – terrorists and pirates lurk, often in collaboration.

5.Cyber terrorism against critical energy infrastructure represents a growing and often underestimated danger to energy security. Frank Umbach recently pointed out that, although the US-military is forced to make cuts in their budget, the Pentagon’s Cyber Command was increased from 900 to 4 900 personnel. President Barack Obama recently warned that enemies of the United States could attempt to sabotage its  energy infrastructure, particularly its power grids. The head of the US national intelligence service, James Clapper, added that such attacks constituted “the most  immediate  threat.” What if a cyber attack succeeded in disabling the cooling systems of nuclear power plants? In 2012, Austrian author Marc Elsberg wrote a political thriller on the dangers of cyber terrorism for Europe’s electricity supply that he recently presented at the Forum FAZ/ Munich Security Conference.

6.Natural disasters are a real threat to supply security, as the two storms Katrina and Rita demonstrated in 2005. These  storms destroyed about 170 offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Almost a third of the American oil production and its refining capacity was lost – with far-reaching and long-lasting consequences for supplies across the entire country. Even worse were the consequences of the earthquake and the ensuing tsunami on March 11, 2011 in Japan: they led to the death of thousands of people and a “beyond design-basis accident” at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, with dramatic consequences for Japan’s society and economy. Beyond disasters of such magnitude, reinsurance companies report that the number of devastating floods and storms  is on the rise – not least as a consequence of climate change. And natural disasters like these are usually accompanied by short- or long-term disruptions of energy supplies. These threats will increase along with the progression of climate change: monster storm Sandy of October 2012, which took six lives in New York alone, forced the evacuation of 375 000 people, and left 8 million people without electricity for several days, was only a foretaste. Only a few years ago, it was inconceivable that storms of this magnitude would appear as far north. Climate change also brings new dangers to other parts of the world, both, for people and energy supplies: What, for example, will it mean for Russia when the permafrost regions of Siberia get perpetually warmer? What consequences will there be for supplies to Chinese cities when Himalayan glaciers continue to melt and the big hydro-power plants do not pro- duce enough electricity any longer?