2018年-查塔姆研究所_The_Vulnerability_of_Energy_Infrastructure_to_Environmental_Change_12页_747kb

Summary of "The Vulnerability of Energy Infrastructure to Environmental Change"

Core Content

This document highlights the growing vulnerability of global energy infrastructure to environmental changes, particularly climate change. It outlines how both new and existing energy installations are at risk due to physical and environmental shifts, and emphasizes the need for more comprehensive planning and design that accounts for these changes.

Main Challenges

1. Inherited Challenges

• Existing energy infrastructure was not designed with climate change in mind, leading to potential instability.
• Many installations, such as the Hoover Dam and nuclear power plants, have long lifespans (decades to centuries), making them susceptible to environmental changes over time.
• The assumption that environmental conditions are constant is no longer valid, requiring a re-evaluation of infrastructure resilience.

2. New Challenges

• A substantial portion of infrastructure in North America and Western Europe is scheduled for decommissioning, leading to a new era of investment.
• However, many new projects do not account for future environmental changes, despite the ability to predict some of them with scientific accuracy.

Key Environmental Impacts

Hydropower

• Glacier-dependent plants: Fluctuating melt rates and increased flooding can disrupt operations, erode infrastructure, and damage local economies.
  • Example: In Nepal, Bhutan, and China, many new glacial lakes have formed, increasing the risk of sudden outbursts.
  • By 2050, 64% of China's glaciers may be gone, leading to potential water shortages.
• Precipitation-dependent plants: Unpredictable rainfall patterns can lead to reduced power generation, floods, and irrigation issues.
  • In 2008–09, India's hydroelectricity generation declined by 8.42% due to inadequate rainfall.
  • Overfilling of reservoirs during rainy seasons can lead to downstream flooding and infrastructure damage.

Nuclear Power

• Nuclear plants require large amounts of water for cooling, making them vulnerable to changes in water availability and extreme weather.
• Coastal plants: At risk from rising sea levels, storm surges, and extreme weather events.
  • Example: In 2003, France had to shut down 17 reactors due to heat and water shortages.
• River-based plants: Face challenges from increasing temperatures and drought, which reduce water levels and affect cooling efficiency.
• The UK's Dungeness plant is built on an unstable geological formation and is only a few metres above sea level.

Offshore and Coastal Production

• Offshore oil and gas production is increasingly affected by extreme weather and rising sea levels.
  • Example: Hurricane Katrina and Rita caused significant damage to US Gulf Coast infrastructure, including 457 pipelines and 113 platforms.
• Pipelines and other infrastructure are at risk from erosion, subsidence, and changes in water tables.
• Many major oil and gas facilities are only slightly above sea level, making them vulnerable to flooding and storm surges.

Arctic and Cold Climate Infrastructure

• Permafrost, a critical foundation for infrastructure in cold climates, is melting due to rising temperatures.
  • Example: The Trans-Alaska pipeline carries 20% of the US domestic oil supply and is at risk from permafrost thaw.
• Melting permafrost can lead to flooding, erosion, and landslides, threatening the stability of linear infrastructure such as pipelines and railways.
• The proposed Arctic shipping route through the Northwest Passage is at risk due to deteriorating rail infrastructure in Churchill, Manitoba.

Renewable Energy Generation

• All forms of energy generation, including renewables, must be evaluated for environmental resilience.
  • Solar plants built on flood plains are at risk.
  • Wind farms must consider changing air currents and erosion.
  • Geothermal plants must avoid triggering earthquakes.
  • Tidal generation must account for sea level rise and increased storm activity.

Economic and Geopolitical Implications

• Environmental disruptions can increase insurance costs and threaten the economic viability of energy projects.
• Water scarcity may lead to increased costs for hydro and freshwater-cooled nuclear installations.
• In some cases, environmental changes may lead to geopolitical tensions, such as disputes over water resources and shifts in energy supply routes.
  • Example: Russia may shift from pipelines to tankers if permafrost thaw makes infrastructure stabilization too costly.
  • The US may seek to supplement water shortages from Canada, increasing regional tensions.

Conclusion

The document stresses the importance of incorporating environmental change into the planning and design of energy infrastructure. It calls for more research, investment, and adaptation strategies to ensure that both new and existing installations are resilient to future environmental conditions. Failure to do so could result in significant economic and social costs, as well as increased vulnerability to disruptions.