Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Nuclear energy consumption and CO2 emissions in India: Evidence from Fourier ARDL bounds test approach

  • Ozgur, Onder (Faculty of Political Sciences, Department of Economics, Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, Esenboga Campus) ;
  • Yilanci, Veli (Faculty of Political Sciences, Department of Economics, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University) ;
  • Kongkuah, Maxwell (School of Finance and Economics, Jiangsu University)
  • Received : 2021.06.27
  • Accepted : 2021.11.02
  • Published : 2022.05.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study uses data from 1970 to 2016 to analyze the effect of nuclear energy use on CO2 emissions and attempts to validate the EKC hypothesis using the Fourier Autoregressive Distributive Lag model in India for the first time. Because of India's rapidly rising population, the environment is being severely strained. However, with 22 operational nuclear reactors, India boasts tremendous nuclear energy potential to cut down on CO2 emissions. The EKC is validated in India as the significant coefficients of GDP and GDP.2 The short-run estimates also suggest that most environmental externalities are corrected within a year. Given the findings, some policy recommendations abound. The negative statistically significant coefficient of nuclear energy consumption is an indication that nuclear power expansion is essential to achieving clean and sustainable growth as a policy goal. Also, policymakers should enact new environmental laws that support the expansion and responsible use of nuclear energy as it is cleaner than fossil fuels and reduces the cost and over-dependence on oil, which ultimately leads to higher economic growth in the long run. Future research should consider studying the nonlinearities in the nuclear energy-CO2 emissions nexus as the current study is examined in the linear sense.

Keywords

References

  1. N. Mahmood, Z. Wang, B. Zhang, The role of nuclear energy in the correction of environmental pollution: evidence from Pakistan, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 52 (6) (2020) 1327-1333, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2019.11.027.
  2. Danish, B. Ozcan, R. Ulucak, An empirical investigation of nuclear energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission in India: bridging IPAT and EKC hypotheses, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 53 (6) (2021) 2056-2065, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.12.008.
  3. 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.
  4. 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, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 52 (12) (2020) 2969-2974, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.05.016.
  5. K. Saidi, A. Omri, Reducing CO2 emissions in OECD countries: do renewable and nuclear energy matter? Prog. Nucl. Energy 126 (2020), 103425 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2020.103425.
  6. A. Garg, et al., CO2 emission in India: trends and management at sectoral, subregional and plant levels, Carbon Manag. 8 (2) (2017) 111-123, https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2017.1306406.
  7. R. Rani, N. Kumar, Does nuclear energy consumption improve environment? Empirical evidence from India, Nat. Environ. Pollut. Technol. 16 (4) (2017) 1075-1079.
  8. B. Muhammad, Energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in developed, emerging and Middle East and North Africa countries, Energy (2019) 232-245, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.03.126.
  9. M. Ben Mbarek, K. Saidi, M. Amamri, The relationship between pollutant emissions, renewable energy, nuclear energy and GDP: empirical evidence from 18 developed and developing countries, Int. J. Sustain. Energy 37 (6) (2018) 597-615, https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2017.1332060.
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. V. Yilanci, S. Bozoklu, M.S. Gorus, Are BRICS countries pollution havens? Evidence from a bootstrap ARDL bounds testing approach with a Fourier function, Sustainable Cities and Society 55 (2020), 102035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102035
  14. K. Menyah, Y. Wolde-Rufael, CO2 emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy and economic growth in the US, Energy Pol. 38 (6) (2010) 2911-2915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.024
  15. M. Jaforullah, A. King, Does the use of renewable energy sources mitigate CO2 emissions? A reassessment of the US evidence, Energy Econ. 49 (2015) 711-717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.04.006
  16. J. Baek, Do nuclear and renewable energy improve the environment? Empirical evidence from the United States, Ecol. Indicat. 66 (2016) 352-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.059
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. D.H. Vo, A.T. Vo, C.M. Ho, H.M. Nguyen, The role of renewable energy, alternative and nuclear energy in mitigating carbon emissions in the CPTPP countries, Renew. Energy 161 (2020) 278-292, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.07.093.
  20. A. Azam, M. Rafiq, M. Shafique, H. Zhang, J. Yuan, Analyzing the effect of natural gas, nuclear energy and renewable energy on GDP and carbon emissions: a multi-variate panel data analysis, Energy 219 (2021), 119592, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119592.
  21. M. Pilatowska, A. Geise, A. Wlodarczyk, The effect of renewable and nuclear energy consumption on decoupling economic growth from CO2 emissions in Spain, Energies 13 (9) (2020) 2124, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13092124.
  22. A. Alam, Nuclear energy, CO2 emissions and economic growth: the case of developing and developed countries, J. Econ. Stud. 40 (6) (2013) 822-834. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-04-2012-0044
  23. 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
  24. J. Baek, A panel cointegration analysis of CO2 emissions, nuclear energy and income in major nuclear generating countries, Appl. Energy 145 (2015) 133-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.074
  25. 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.
  26. J. Baek, A panel cointegration analysis of CO2 emissions, nuclear energy and income in major nuclear generating countries, Appl. Energy 145 (2015) 133-138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.074.
  27. N. Apergis, J.E. Payne, A panel study of nuclear energy consumption and economic growth, Energy Econ. 32 (3) (2010) 545-549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.09.015
  28. J.E. Payne, J.P. Taylor, Nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in the US: an empirical note, Energy Sources B Energy Econ. Plann. 5 (3) (2010) 301-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567240802533955
  29. S. Nazlioglu, F. Lebe, S. Kayhan, Nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in OECD countries: cross-sectionally dependent heterogeneous panel causality analysis, Energy Pol. 39 (10) (2011) 6615-6621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.007
  30. H. Iwata, K. Okada, S. Samreth, Empirical study on the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 in France: the role of nuclear energy, Energy Pol. 38 (8) (2010) 4057-4063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.031
  31. 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
  32. Y. Wolde-Rufael, K. Menyah, Nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in nine developed countries, Energy Econ. 32 (3) (2010) 550-556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2010.01.004
  33. H.P. Lin, L.T. Yeh, H.C. Tsui, S.C. Chien, Nuclear and non-nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in Taiwan, Energy Sources B Energy Econ. Plann. 10 (1) (2015) 59-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2011.648046
  34. 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
  35. H. Naser, Analysing the long-run relationship among oil market, nuclear energy consumption, and economic growth: an evidence from emerging economies, Energy 89 (2015) 421-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.115
  36. Y. Wolde-Rufael, Bounds test approach to cointegration and causality between nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in India, Energy Pol. 38 (1) (2010) 52-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.053
  37. J.Y. Heo, S.H. Yoo, S.J. Kwak, The causal relationship between nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in India, Energy Sources B Energy Econ. Plann. 6 (2) (2011) 111-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567240802533971
  38. A. Omri, N.B. Mabrouk, Sassi-Tmar, A, Modeling the causal linkages between nuclear energy, renewable energy and economic growth in developed and developing countries, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42 (2015) 1012-1022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.046
  39. G. Gozgor, E. Demir, Evaluating the efficiency of nuclear energy policies: an empirical examination for 26 countries, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 24 (22) (2017) 18596-18604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9486-3
  40. R. Ulucak, Ozcan B. Danish, An empirical investigation of nuclear energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission in India: bridging IPAT and EKC hypotheses, Nucl. Eng. Technol. (2020), 104743, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.12.008.
  41. Allan W. Gregory, B.E. Hansen, Residual-based tests for cointegration in models with regime shifts, J. Econom. 70 (1) (1996) 99-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(69)41685-7
  42. S. Johansen, R. Mosconi, B. Nielsen, Cointegration analysis in the presence of structural breaks in the deterministic trend, Econom. J. 3 (2) (2000) 216-249. https://doi.org/10.1111/1368-423X.00047
  43. A. Hatemi-j, Tests for cointegration with two unknown regime shifts with an application to financial market integration, Empir. Econ. 35 (3) (2008) 497-505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-007-0175-9
  44. D. Maki, Tests for cointegration allowing for an unknown number of breaks, Econ. Modell. 29 (5) (2012) 2011-2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.04.022
  45. R.J. Hyndman, Measuring Forecast Accuracy, Business Forecasting: Practical Problems and Solutions, 2014, pp. 177-183.
  46. 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
  47. R. McNown, C.Y. Sam, S.K. Goh, Bootstrapping the autoregressive distributed lag test for cointegration, Appl. Econ. 50 (13) (2018) 1509-1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2017.1366643
  48. W. Enders, J. Lee, The flexible Fourier form and Dickey-Fuller type unit root tests, Econ. Lett. 117 (1) (2012) 196-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.081