Khalil Elahee, MA(Cantab), PhD
Faculty of Engineering,
University of Mauritius








 Engineering
 Economic
 Environmental
 Ethical
5E’s of
Sustainable
Energy
Management

 Indicators are derived from data and are the most basic tools for analyzing changes
Data
Indicators
Index
Information

 Holistic Set of
Indicators
 Relevance
 Understandability
 Reliability
 Accessibility of data

 Environmental
 Indicator 1: GHG emission from energy use per capita
 Indicator 2: Most significant pollutant from energy use (SO2) per capita
 Ethical
 Indicator 3: Share of household income on energy
 Indicator 4: Investment in clean energy/ total investment
 Economic
 Indicator 5: Energy resilience (net import of energy/ total energy requirement)
 Indicator 6: Burden on energy investment /GDP
 Engineering
 Indicator 7: Energy use per GDP
 Indicator 8: Share of renewable energy per total energy requirement

 Indicator ( I year
) = ( X – Y ) / Z where
X = Observed value
Y = Target value
Z = Difference between a reference value and Y

Comparing 1990, 2000 and 2004
I
1990
Indicator 1 -0.19
Indicator 2 0.32
Indicator 3 0.125
Indicator 4 0.964
Indicator 5 0.594
Indicator 6 0.462
Indicator 7 1.157
Indicator 8 0.625
I
1995
0.034
0.42
0.13
0.925
0.67
0.311
0.842
0.718
I
2004
0.301
1.116
0.165
0.9
0.78
0.554
0.783
0.845

7
8
Energy Indicators
1.2
1
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
2
3
6
I1990
5
I1995
4
I2004

 Except for Energy Intensity ( Indicator 7), there has been no significant improvement for any of the Indicators since 1990.
 The worst cases are than of GHG emissions per capita (
Indicator 1) and emission of most significant pollutant (SO2) per capita (Indicator 2)
 A shrinking of the STAR is a good sign of sustainable use of energy. This happened between 1990 and 1995 ( dwindling use of coal cf. hydropower) , but thereafter the situation grew worse.
 The situation in 2006 was indeed worse because of increasing use of fossil fuel ( increase in coal import by 26 % ) and of decreasing use of local energy resources by 6 % ( in 2005 cf.
2004)

 Making the STAR shrink is our objective:
 Reduce CO2 and SO2 emissions
 Affordable energy for all
 Investment in renewables
 Energy efficiency improvement
 Let’s face the facts: the technology exists, external factors are known and the problem is INTERNAL , ie politico-economic and administrative!

 Vision: “energy independence”quoting APJ Abdul
Kalam (p16)
 Self-sufficiency is already evoked in 1997 NLPTS
Vision 2020 paper. Moreover, the CEB Corporate Plan
2003-13 points in same the direction.
 Long-term vision is not defined beyond 2025.
 The notion of “ interdependence” or regional potential of codevelopment is not included.
 None of the 5 key objectives of the Outline refers directly to sustainable development, renewable or environment.

 “70% self-sufficiency in 50 years”, “limit vulnerability to imported fossil fuel” (p15-
16)
 No clear target set beyond 2025.
 Cf. Réunion where by 2025, 90% selfsufficiency in electricity generation is expected at the cost of EUR 1 billion ( PRERURE)
 In Mauritius, against an investment of EUR 2 billion in 25 years in electricity generation, no target is set. However, 75% and 57% of the latter will be dependent on fossil fuel in 2013 and in 2025 respectively (p17)

 FOCUS. “financial sustainability” of CEB
(Foreword and 22 out of 30 pages). Even the
Utility Regulator Act(2004) to be proclaimed by end 2008 makes the “sustainability and viability of the utility services” a top priority
( III-4)
 The Outline document is largely focused on the
CEB.
 Energy-transport, energy-tourism and energydevelopment linkages are not addressed.
 What is CEB is no more the sole provider as possible under the URA(2004)?
 The focus customers’ interests and universal access to energy is missing.

 LOCAL PARTICIPATION & COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. An energy efficiency campaign was launched in 2005(p13).
Democratization of the economy is evoked (p1). Participation of the sugar industry is required in the context of the
MAAS(p7).
 Lack of feedback and reporting icw the energy efficiency campaign. The strategy of public involvement is questionable. The
Energy Efficiency Act due by the end of 2008 must be preceded by sensitization.
 Decentralization of energy systems is vaguely referred to (p19).
 BOO thru unsollicited bids is preferred to PPP where public interest would have been safeguarded both in terms of selling price of electricity and of environment protection.
 Instead of confidence-building and searching for win-win situation with the sugar sector in dire need of re-engineering into a new cane industry, the CEB is pitted against the latter. Conflict-prone references such as “apportionment of investment”, “subsidy from
CEB” or “bagasse-coal …becomes coal-only” ( p21-24) reveal a problem-oriented agenda.




 TRANSPARENCY. “Need for the Regulator to have unfettered access to all information.” (p20)
 This refers to future practice.
 In the meantime, decisions need to be taken not only in total financial transparency but also in a coherent manner ( OECD and IAEA norms on coherence and sustainable energy indicators)
 The decision to include the Waste-to-Energy project and the coal-project as part of the short-term energy plan was taken in spite of “insufficient data provided by the promoters” ( p6 of CEB document annexed to
Outline document). This was largely at the expense of a proposal with excellent references that would have optimized the use of bagasse ( p8 of the latter document). Not to mention the wind proposal which is now null-and-void.

 WIND. Not in CEB submitted as annex to the
Outline document, yet specific project fully included in Outline ( p11 and p28) published in
April 2007.
 Now revealed that since Dec 2006, specific proposal is null and void. Choice of strategic partner, rather than owner thru unsolicited bid, should be based on transparency and credibility.
 Potential of Bigara should be exploited immediately ( confirmed since Batelle Report, 1986)

 WASTE-TO-ENERGY.Provision made specifically for several incineration projects
(4.7% in 2013 and 6% in 2025) (p12,p17)
 Linkage with Integrated Waste Management
(3R’s) and other waste-to-energy options ( methane from landfill and biogas) is not considered .
 ETHANOL. E10 will be introduced not before 2010, report on tests expected by mid 2008 (p13)
 In National Energy Conference (1980), results already reported, literature abounds and
Brazilian experience is available. Why so much delay?

COAL. Dedicated coal power plants are compared with bagasse-coal power plants and stated to be
“20% more efficient” (p5). “To limit CO2 emissions,
Mauritius should resort to clean coal technology”
(p21). “”Coal is replacing oil in the medium term”(p21)
 Comparing like with unlike, not defining the efficiency considered, neglecting the potential of Research,
Development and Innovation and restricting the meaning of clean coal technology to pulverized coal or low sulphur emissions.
 The unbelievable conclusion is that coal-only is better than for the environment than bagasse-coal.
 Coal in fact does not replace oil except in the short term. From 2007 to 2013, the % coal use decreases while the % oil use is constant. At 20%...and it remains there!

 BAGASSE. “More bagasse is used in absolute terms” (p5). “Cane biomass is not yet fully tapped.”(p8)
 In fact the energy from bagasse in absolute terms is DECREASING today!
 The MAAS plans for 600 GWh from bagasse in
2015. However, in 2013, 15% of 3092 GWh is expected from bagasse according to the
Outline, that is 464 GWh.
 Scope for cane biomass use is 10 times more with energy canes, advanced technology and use of tops and leaves. Research,
Development and Innovation should be a priority ( as for ocean energy)

 DEMANDSUPPLY.”2 million tourists expected in 2015” (p1). “5% electricity demand growth annually”. Demand problem is due to peak ( 300 MW today cf. 500 MW in
2013)
 The requirement of 2 million tourists should be assessed systematically. Green tourism?
 It is essential to identify WHO DRIVES the demand and WHO PAYS for it.
 Peak/demand-side management should be an immediate priority

 PRICING POLICY. “Incentives limited to environment e.g carbon credits” (p7). “subsidies as carbon credit only.” (p23,24 and 28)
 Environmental costs should be fully integrated. Ethanol e.g will not penetrate the market without crosssubsidization. Is LPG not currently subsidized?
 Brazil put in USD 30 billion in 20 years to promote ethanol and got back USD 50 billion saving on oil import. Today the benefits…
 The issue of environmental costs related to fuels e.g coal and products e.g big cars should be fully addressed.
 Revenue due to environmental costs imposition may be directed to Research, Development and Innovation in sustainable energy, climate change mitigation and adaptation.

 Recommendation for URGENT CONSENSUAL
ACTION though a Sustainable Energy Act instead of experts developing policy based on flawed Outline document
 Coherent, holistic medium-long term policy ( up to
2050) to promote renewables, energy efficiency as well as a regional energy industry
 Energy Management Office for facilitating implementation/coordination IMMEDIATELY .
 Finance programmes and cross-subsidization thru an
Environment/Energy Tax on all non-sustainable energy products, from fuel to lamps (reducing VAT if needed)