Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluating the asymmetric effects of nuclear energy on carbon emissions in Pakistan

  • Received : 2021.09.26
  • Accepted : 2021.11.27
  • Published : 2022.05.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Achieving sustainable development requires an increasing share of green technologies. World energy demand is expected to rise significantly especially in developing economies. The increasing energy demands will be entertained with conventional energy sources at the cost of higher emissions unless eco-friendly technologies are used. This study examines the asymmetric effects of nuclear energy on carbon emissions for Pakistan from 1974 to 2019. Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Phillips Perron (PP) unit root tests suggest that variables are integrated of order one and bound test of Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) and nonlinear ARDL confirm a long-run relationship among selected variables. The ARDL, Fully Modified Ordinary Least Squares (FMOLS), and Dynamic Ordinary Least Squares (DOLS) results show that the coefficient of nuclear energy has a negative and significant impact on emissions in both short and long run. Further, the NARDL finding shows that there exists an asymmetric long-run association between nuclear energy and CO2 emissions. The vector error correction method (VECM) results indicate that there exists a bidirectional causal relationship between nuclear energy and carbon emissions in both the short and long run. Additionally, the impact of nuclear energy on ecological footprint has been examined and our findings remain robust.

Keywords

References

  1. U. Al-Mulali, Investigating the impact of nuclear energy consumption on GDP growth and CO2 emission: a panel data analysis, Prog. Nucl. Energy 73 (2014) 172-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2014.02.002
  2. A.A. Alola, N. Nwulu, Income vs. economic freedom threshold and energy utilities in Russia: an environmental quality variableness? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. (2021) 1-8.
  3. G. Akhmat, K. Zaman, T. Shukui, F. Sajjad, M.A. Khan, M.Z. Khan, The challenges of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution through energy sources: evidence from a panel of developed countries, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 21 (12) (2014) 7425-7435.
  4. T. Azomahou, F. Laisney, P.N. Van, Economic development and CO2 emissions: a nonparametric panel approach, J. Publ. Econ. 90 (6-7) (2006) 1347-1363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.09.005
  5. J. Baek, D. Pride, On the income-nuclear energy-CO2 emissions nexus revisited, Energy Econ. 43 (2014) 6-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2014.01.015
  6. R.A. Begum, K. Sohag, S.M.S. Abdullah, M. Jaafar, CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic and population growth in Malaysia, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 41 (2015) 594-601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.205
  7. British Petroleum, Statistical Review of World Energy, 2020. https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review/bpstats-review-2018-full-report.pdf.
  8. B.W. Brook, A. Alonso, D.A. Meneley, J. Misak, T. Blees, J.B. van Erp, Why nuclear energy is sustainable and has to be part of the energy mix, Sustain. Mater. Technol. 1 (2014) 8-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2014.11.001
  9. R.J. Budnitz, Nuclear power: status report and future prospects, Energy Pol. 96 (2016) 735-739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.011
  10. B.R. Copeland, M.S. Taylor, Trade, growth, and the environment, J. Econ. Lit. 42 (1) (2004) 7-71. https://doi.org/10.1257/002205104773558047
  11. Danish, B. Ozcan, R. Ulucak, An empirical investigation of nuclear energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission in India: bridging IPAT and EKC hypotheses, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 53 (6) (2021) 2056-2065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.12.008
  12. K. Danish, R. Ulucak, S. Erdogan, The effect of nuclear energy on the environment nexus in the context of globalization: consumption vs productionbased CO2 emissions, Nucl. Eng. Technol. (2021) 1-29.
  13. Danish, Z. Wang, Role of renewable energy and non-renewable energy consumption on EKC: evidence from Pakistan, J. Clean. Prod. 156 (2017) 855-864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.203
  14. M.A. Destek, A. Sinha, Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries, J. Clean. Prod. 242 (2020), 118537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118537
  15. K. Dong, R. Sun, H. Jiang, X. Zeng, CO2 emissions, economic growth, and the environmental Kuznets curve in China: what roles can nuclear energy and renewable energy play? J. Clean. Prod. 196 (2018) 51-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.271
  16. S. Dinda, Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey, Ecol. Econ. 49 (4) (2004) 431-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.011
  17. J. Goldemberg, Nuclear energy in developing countries, Daedalus 138 (4) (2009) 71-80. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed.2009.138.4.71
  18. F. Gralla, D.J. Abson, A.P. Moller, D.J. Lang, H. von Wehrden, Energy transitions and national development indicators: a global review of nuclear energy production, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 70 (2017) 1251-1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.026
  19. G.M. Grossman, A.B. Krueger, Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement (No. W3914), National Bureau of Economic Research, 1991.
  20. S.T. Hassan, M.A. Baloch, Z.H. Tarar, Is nuclear energy a better alternative for mitigating CO2 emissions in BRICS countries? An empirical analysis, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 52 (12) (2020) 2969-2974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.05.016
  21. IAEA, Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2018, IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), Vienna, 2018.
  22. IPCC, Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change and Land: IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 2019.
  23. H. Iwata, K. Okada, S. Samreth, Empirical study on the determinants of CO2 emissions: evidence from OECD countries, Appl. Econ. 44 (27) (2012) 3513-3519. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2011.577023
  24. IEA (International Energy Agency), Global Energy Demand Rose by 2.3% In2018, its Fastest Pace in the Last Decade, IEA News, 2019. Updated 28March 2019, 26 March 2019, https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2019/march/globalenergy demandrose-by-23-in-2018-its-fastest-pace-in-thelast-decade.html.
  25. IEA, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, International Energy Agency, 2019.
  26. T. Jin, J. Kim, What is better for mitigating carbon emissions-renewable energy or nuclear energy? A panel data analysis, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 91 (2018) 464-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.022
  27. V. Knapp, D. Pevec, Promises and limitations of nuclear fission energy in combating climate change, Energy Pol. 120 (2018) 94-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.027
  28. L.S. Lau, C.K. Choong, C.F. Ng, F.M. Liew, S.L. Ching, Is nuclear energy clean? Revisit of Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis in OECD countries, Econ. Modell. 77 (2019) 12-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2018.09.015
  29. S. Lee, M. Kim, J. Lee, Analyzing the impact of nuclear power on CO2 emissions, Sustainability 9 (8) (2017) 1428. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081428
  30. M.T. Majeed, T. Luni, Renewable energy, water, and environmental degradation: a global panel data approach, Pak. J. Commerce Soc. Sci. (PJCSS) 13 (3) (2019) 749-778.
  31. M.T. Majeed, M. Mazhar, Reexamination of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: the role of biocapacity, human capital, and trade, Pak. J. Commerce Soc. Sci. 14 (1) (2020) 202-254.
  32. I. Ozturk, Measuring the impact of alternative and nuclear energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and oil rents on specific growth factors in the panel of Latin American countries, Prog. Nucl. Energy 100 (2017) 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.05.030
  33. N. Mahmood, Z. Wang, B. Zhang, The role of nuclear energy in the correction of environmental pollution: evidence from Pakistan, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 52 (6) (2020) 1327-1333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2019.11.027
  34. NEA, The Role of Nuclear Energy in a Low-Carbon Energy Future, Organization for economic co-operation and development, 2012. NEA No. 6887)(OECD), Nuclear Energy Agency.
  35. R. Perman, D.I. Stern, Evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests that the environmental Kuznets curve does not exist, Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 47 (3) (2003) 325-347. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.00216
  36. M.H. Pesaran, Y. Shin, R.J. Smith, Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships, J. Appl. Econom. 16 (3) (2001) 289-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
  37. J. Roca, E. Padilla, M. Farre, V. Galletto, Economic growth and atmospheric pollution in Spain: discussing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis, Ecol. Econ. 39 (1) (2001) 85-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00195-1
  38. S.A. Sarkodie, S. Adams, Renewable energy, nuclear energy, and environmental pollution: accounting for political institutional quality in South Africa, Sci. Total Environ. 643 (2018) 1590-1601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.320
  39. Y. Shin, B. Yu, M. Greenwood-Nimmo, Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework, in: Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt, Springer, New York, NY, 2014, pp. 281-314.
  40. P.V. Srinivasan, Dynamics of structural transformation in South Asia, Asia Pac. Dev. J. 20 (2) (2014) 53-88. https://doi.org/10.18356/82da9007-en
  41. K. Saidi, M.B. Mbarek, Nuclear energy, renewable energy, CO2 emissions, and economic growth for nine developed countries: evidence from panel Granger causality tests, Prog. Nucl. Energy 88 (2016) 364-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2016.01.018
  42. A. Tamazian, B.B. Rao, Do economic, financial and institutional developments matter for environmental degradation? Evidence from transitional economies, Energy Econ. 32 (1) (2010) 137-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.04.004
  43. UNECE, Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources and the United Nations Resource Management System: Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development -Entry Pathways, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva, 2021.
  44. Z. Wang, B. Zhang, B. Wang, Renewable energy consumption, economic growth and human development index in Pakistan: evidence form simultaneous equation model, J. Clean. Prod. 184 (2018) 1081-1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.260
  45. WNA, World Nuclear Performance Report 2020 (RNo: 2020/008), World Nuclear Association, United Kingdom, 2020.
  46. World Bank, World Development Indicators, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2020 (Online) Available at: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-developmentindicators. (Accessed 25 August 2020).
  47. Y. Xu, J. Kang, J. Yuan, The prospective of nuclear power in China, Sustainability 10 (6) (2018) 2086. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062086
  48. S. Saint Akadiri, A.A. Alola, O. Usman, Energy mix outlook and the EKC hypothesis in BRICS countries: a perspective of economic freedom vs. economic growth, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 28 (7) (2021) 8922-8926.