Energy is back in the headlines. As world oil prices have climbed to start the new century and retail products like gasoline have become 20-25 % more expensive, voices of concern are once again being raised about the global energy system.
While there are important impacts from costlier energy, especially on less well-off members of society, reactions to recent events largely miss the point by dwelling on high prices. Our aim cannot be the restoration of "cheap energy." Neither our planet, which is now feeling the early effects of cli-mate change, nor our public health it is esticli-mated that two-thirds of the world's urban populations breathe unhealthy air, thanks to energy-based pollution can endure cheap energy for much longer.
If the most recent energy conundrums are to encourage intelligent action, our global response needs to focus on the requirements of an environmentally sustainable and socially equitable energy future.
이 글은 고려대학교가 개교100주년 기념사업으로 노벨 수상자 10명과 세계적으로 저명한 학자들을 분야별로 초청하여 발표(2005.5.23)할 내용 중에서 과학기술 분과의 "에너지의 오늘과 미래"의 서문에 해당되는 내용을 저자의 허락을 받고 게재합니다. 저자인 John Byrne박사는 현재 미국 델라웨어 대학교 공공정책학과 (에너지 및 환경)의 저명한 교수( Distinguished Professor of Public Policy )이며 에너지와 환경정책 센터(CEEP)의 소장으로 ENEP와 UAPP 프로그램의 핵심 위원으로 활동한 경력이 있다. 그는 지속적인 에너지와 환경 미래를 위한 공동 연구소의 공동 소장이기도 하다. Byrne교수는 1980년 델라웨어 대학교에서 정치 경제학 박사학위를 받았다. 주요저서는:
- Energy Revolution: 21st Century Energy and Environmental Strategy (2004), Environmental Justice (2002), Governing the Atom: The Politics of Risk (1996), Energy and Environment (1992), The Politics of Energy Research and Development (1986), Energy and Cities (1986), Families and
해외정보
The current energy system will not last more than two decades into the new century. Significant changes to its architecture are inevitable due to mounting environmental problems. The coming into force of the Kyoto Protocol on February 15, 2005 has signaled an international consensus to act on behalf of our grandchildren's future. The Protocol is by no means adequate to the task of averting climate change, a threat that is largely traceable to current commercial energy use. The failure of the U.S., Australia and other nations to participate in this landmark treaty is also troubling and dimin-ishes the effectiveness of the commitments made to date by the international community.
Still, the treaty's ratification, over the objection of the most powerful country and the largest national contributor to greenhouse emissions the U.S. is a welcome step. Finally, it seems that humanity is beginning to engage the environmental flaws of the current energy system. We will be tested in this regard by our answers to the following questions: Will we send forward to our grand-childrena legacy of energy inefficiency and waste? Or will we recognize that cheap energy is simply a form of subsidy to the present generation at the expense of future generations, and instead take the necessary actions to halt global warming by building a new and sustainable energy regime?
In addition to its environmental drawbacks, the current "cheap energy" system is nearing techno-logical and economic obsolescence. The era of large power plants, high-voltage transmission sys-tems, massive oil cracking and refining complexes, and huge coal mining and transport operations will come to an end soon. Today we compute with PCs rather than mainframes and communicate with cell phones via satellites rather than clunky rotary phones wired to antique switching systems.
The "small is better" revolution that transformed computation and communication has a bead on our energy infrastructure.
In the next two decades, the old platform of big, centralized and risky technologies will be replaced with a new one built on microturbines, high-efficiency end-use equipment, fuel cells and scaled-to-need renewable energy systems. Alongside these technology changes, there are potent forces of the so-called "new economy" of information and services that will command investment interest while the industrial economy rusts. The new economic drivers will change the way we think about energy and much else in the global economy.
해외정보
We will have the opportunity in the new century to replace the technologies and economies of scale that dominated the industrial era and concentrated the bulk of productive capacity in the hands of a few nations and corporations with those of diversity and participation. So-called e-commerce is flattered with more attention than it presently deserves. But the possibility exists of combining
"small is better," "open access" internet technology with the power of ideas to construct a dramatically different future in which economic and technological decentralization, environmental conservation, and social equity are rewarded rather than their current antitheses.
Of course, if we allow the old energy order to arrest its decline by providing its stakeholders with even higher subsidies to create the false impression that "cheap energy" is once more available, we may delay this opportunity. It will be up to each society not to let this happen.
Lest one doubt the "practicality" of such a future, a partnership of independent Korean and U.S.
researchers has recently shown how a Korean energy future is available that requires dramatically less energy consumption than present trends and improves environmental quality and social equity.
My center has cooperated with the Research Institute of Energy, Environment and Economy of Kyungpook University, the Citizens' Institute for Environmental Studies of the Korean Federation of Environmental Movements, and the Environmental Planning Institute of Seoul National University, to create the Joint Institute for Sustainable Energy and Environmental Futures (JISEEF).
Our first JISEEF publication, Energy Revolution: 21st Century Energy and Environmental Strategy(Maekyung Publishing, Inc., 2004, in English and Korean languages) offers a detailed analy-sis based on an examination of more than 2,500 currently available technologies. It shows how state-of-the-art energy services can be provided while costing Korean society much less in invest-ment capital than an expansion of the existing system. A governinvest-ment plan proposes to expand the use of large-scale, increasingly obsolete energy technologies to build a supply system that will be twice the size of the current infrastructure by 2020. To double the size of the national energy sys-tem, the government aims to build many new nuclear and fossil energy plants in twenty years. Our JISEEF I Scenario demonstrates that expansion is not needed if, instead, the society embraces a for-ward-looking technology and economic strategy built on "small-is-better" high-efficiency energy equipment and increased reliance on an information-based economy.
해외정보
What will be lost by following the JISEEF I path? As far as we can tell, the only loss would be to the nuclear power and fossil fuel industries. As surely as the PC and cell phone have replaced their large, poorly adapted predecessors, the Goliath-like architecture of existing power plants, refineries and pipelines is destined to lose out to "small-is-better" fuel cells, microturbines and scaled-to-need renewable energy systems. Since nuclear power technology has never solved the problem of socially and ecologically acceptable disposal of its (highly toxic) waste, and because fossil fuel use cannot escape the problems of global warming, Korean society can welcome a strategy that foregoes the risks of the status quo.
What might be gained from the pursuit of a JISEEF I path? Public health would improve. The nation's very special ecological endowment would be preserved and with a greater diversity of life supported on the peninsula. Requiring less energy make to goods and services, Korea's economy would be better able to compete in the global marketplace. A JISEEF I energy system would be sub-ject to community oversight and governance, moving decision making out of the recesses of the expertocracy that presently determines the sector's planning, and into the daylight of individual and community choice. And, considering the need to address relations between North and South Korea, what more effective way for the people of the peninsula to cooperate than in a technologically and ecologically forward-looking development strategy? Rather than building obsolescence into both countries' futures, JISEEF I would reduce energy investment demand by cutting energy waste and, thereby, freeing up preciously needed capital for long-delayed social improvements across the penin-sula.
Korean society and those around the world will have the opportunity to replace energy "rust" in the new century with a system that is decentralized, conservation-oriented and governable by communi-ties based on needs. Our challenge is to prepare the way for a sustainable energy and environmental future by building the institutions and policies that are consistent with the coming era's needs. In this regard, one thing is clear: a sustainable and equitable energy system must be actively pursued;
we cannot simply wait for "trends" to bring it about. ( 본문과 결론은 5월 23일 토론을 거친 다음 정리한 후 저자의 허락을 받아서 게재할 계획입니다)
■주요 에너지 지표
■1차 에너지원별 소비
■에너지 수입
■원유 수급
■주요 석유제품 소비
■LNG 수급
■무연탄 수급
■유연탄 수급
■세계 연료탄 가격
■일본 LNG 수입 실적
■세계 지역별 기준원유 현물가격
■미국 API 상업용 석유 재고
주요통계/국내
생 산 소 비 에너지/GDP 해외의존도 석유의존도
(천 TOE) (TOE/백만원) (%)
2002 35,521 208,636 0.32 97.14 49.09
2003 38,861 215,066 0.32 96.87 47.60
2004p 39,924 220,797 0.32 96.58 45.65
2004 12 3,705 21,592 0.31 96.90 45.03
2005 1 3,396 21,733 - 97.12 44.45
2005 2 3,333 18,985 - 97.06 44.03
자료: 에너지경제연구원, 통계월보
<표 1> 주요 에너지 지표
<표 2> 1차 에너지원별 소비
(단위 : 천 TOE)
<표 3> 에너지 수입
석탄 석유 LNG 원자력 수력 기타 합계
2002 49,096 102,414 23,099 29,776 1,327 2,925 208,636
2003 51,116 102,380 24,194 32,415 1,722 3,241 215,066
2004p 53,127 100,783 28,398 32,679 1,465 4,345 220,797
2004 12 4,845 9,723 3,436 3,090 84 413 21,592
2005 1 4,675 9,661 4,105 2,842 76 375 21,733
2005 2 4,041 8,359 3,332 2,831 59 375 18,985
석 유 LNG 석 탄
(백만 배럴) (백만 달러) (천 톤) (백만 달러) (천 톤) (백만 달러)
2002 1,019 25,139 17,470 3,950 68,519 2,403
2003 1,025 30,104 19,434 5,035 69,958 2,445
2004p 1,021 37,754 22,095 6,503 76,356 4,124
2004 12 96.2 3,810 2,288 733 6,536 410
2005 1 75.1 2,946 2,299 636 6,200 371
2005 2 84.6 3,510 2,121 - 5,051 311
자료: 에너지경제연구원, 통계월보
수입 정제 재고 중동 의존도 도입단가
(천 배럴) (%) ($/bbl, C&F)
2002 790,992 786,805 10,177 73.31 24.24
2003 804,809 782,951 14,339 79.45 28.73
2004p 825,790 825,405 15,324 78.13 36.15
2004 12 74,540 76,282 25,574 80.65 37.87
2005 1 62,490 75,252 12,713 85.18 38.10
2005 2 70,276 67,496 15,361 78.90 40.94
자료: 한국석유공사
<표 4> 원유 수급 자료: 에너지경제연구원, 통계월보
주요통계
<표 5> 주요 석유제품 소비
(단위 : 천 배럴)
<표 6> LNG 수급
(단위 : 천 톤, $/톤)
휘발유 등유 경유 B-C유 LPG 납사
2002 64,078 58,464 138,045 116,907 91,415 245,309
2003 60,484 52,874 145,366 111,361 88,606 252,417
2004p 58,210 43,243 144,534 101,216 88,465 262,871
2004 12 5,270 6,654 14,046 9,423 8,009 23,356
2005 1 4,831 7,515 11,359 11,093 8,447 24,234
2005 2 4,496 5,924 9,805 9,676 7,987 20,716
수입 소비 재고
물량 단가 발전 도시가스 기타
2002 17,470 226.1 6,509 11,194 65 426
2003 19,434 259.1 6,468 11,978 165 1,063
2004p 22,095 294.3 8,818 12,510 516 1,062
2004 12 2,288 320.5 802 1,739 102 1,602
2005 1 2,299 276.6 1,008 2,112 38 802
2005 2 2,121 314.1 684 1,845 34 345
자료: 한국석유공사
자료: 한국가스공사
<표 7> 무연탄 수급
(단위 : 천 톤)
자료: 산업자원부
<표 8> 유연탄 수급
(단위 : 천 톤)
자료: 산업자원부
수입 소비
원료탄 연료탄 제철 발전 시멘트 기타
2002 17,660 46,980 20,097 40,143 5,669 2,355
2003 17,676 47,642 20,509 41,630 6,060 2,339
2004p 18,954 53,151 20,839 45,512 5,309 2,318
2004 12 1,783 4,348 1,802 4,215 472 223
2005 1 1,434 4,386 1,783 4,120 341 224
2005 2 1,177 3,572 1,631 3,553 248 196
공급 소비
생산 수입 가정상업 발전 산업 기타 재고
2002 3,318 3,879 1,175 2,558 3,954 0 10,101
2003 3,298 4,640 1,191 2,710 4,680 0 9,527
2004p 3,191 4,251 1,385 2,356 4,396 0 8,894
2004 12 262 405 247 96 445 0 8,894
2005 1 232 380 214 176 384 0 8,732
2005 2 181 302 164 143 313 0 8,604
주요통계/해외
<표 9> 세계 연료탄 가격
(US$/metric 톤)
주 : ARA를 제외한 타지역 가격은 FOB 기준 자료 : Platts, ICR 최근호
<표 10> 일본 LNG 수입 실적
주 : 수입터미널 도착 기준, CIF 자료 : World Gas Intelligence, 최근호
국가/지역 Kcal/kg Sulf.(%) Ash(%) 5월 1/4분기 평균
유럽, ARA(CIF) 6,000 1 16 65.00 - 67.00 66.37 - 68.63
남아공, Richard Bay 6,200 1 16 45.00 - 47.50 46.28 - 49.48
미국, Baltimore 6,950 2.5 12 NA NA
호주, Newcastle 6,300 0.8 13 50.50 - 52.25 50.00 - 52.43
중국, Qinhuangdao 6,200 0.8 10 54.00 - 56.50 52.66 - 54.96
인니, Kalimantan 6,300 1 10 48.20 - 50.50 49.31 - 51.49
러시아, 태평양 6,300 0.4 15 52.50 - 56.00 51.85 - 54.63
수출국 3월 2월 1-3월
물량(천톤) 가격($/톤) 물량(천톤) 가격($/톤) 물량(천톤) 가격($/톤)
아부다비 485 266.56 364 269.72 1,275 267.09
알라스카 142 273.55 71 278.26 320 274.64
호 주 773 267.84 796 278.54 2,392 273.67
브루나이 535 273.01 588 272.44 1,765 270.98
인도네시아 1,366 335.89 1,354 317.42 4,079 318.64
말레이시아 1,220 276.76 1,116 281.98 3,763 277.87
오 만 61 364.63 62 347.40 185 357.61
카타르 763 281.08 413 283.81 1,773 282.92
합계 / 평균 5,345 290.82 4,763 290.30 15,551 287.71
주요통계
<표 11> 세계 지역별 기준원유 현물가격
(단위 : US$/bbl)
<표 12> 미국 API 상업용 석유 재고
(단위 : 천 배럴) 자료 : 한국석유공사 외
자료 : API, Moneyline Telerate Inc
구 분 WTI Brent Dubai OPEC Basket
2002년 26.17 25.20 25.20 24.36
2003년 31.08 28.81 26.80 28.10
2004년 41.50 38.36 33.74 36.05
04-3/4분기 43.90 41.66 36.23 39.07
04-4/4분기 48.30 44.15 35.77 35.72
05-1/4분기 50.17 48.15 41.81 44.08
‘05년 1월 46.84 44.44 37.97 40.24
2월 47.96 45.37 39.91 41.68
3월 54.27 52.96 45.85 49.07
4월 52.94 50.90 47.21 49.63
4월-4주 51.58 50.42 46.91 49.60
5월-1주 50.82 48.06 45.57 47.55
5월-2주 50.33 46.65 45.34 47.34
5월-3주 47.94 45.46 44.57 45.20
5월 11일 50.52 47.60 45.57 47.39
5월 12일 48.71 45.26 44.99 45.87
5월 13일 48.71 44.30 44.91 45.54
5월 16일 48.61 45.21 44.37 45.47
5월 17일 48.88 45.76 44.50 45.60
5월 18일 46.95 45.68 44.86 45.11
5월 19일 47.03 45.16 44.24 44.65
5월 20일 48.24 45.48 44.90 45.27
5월 23일 47.92 45.65 - 45.50
5월 24일 49.33 45.95 45.24 45.70
2005. 5. 13 전년동기 2005. 5. 6 2005. 4. 29
정제 가동률(%) 95.30 96.1 94.70 94.40
휘발유 213,526 203,786 213,843 213,759
중간유분 102,081 97,950 103,908 101,758
잔사유 42,248 50,406 40,565 40,189
원 유 331,258 363,410 328,725 334,832
제2권 4호
에너지 포커스 (ENERGY FOCUS)
발 행 2005년 5월 발 행 인 방 기 열 편 집 인 김 중 구 발 행 처 에너지경제연구원
우437-082 경기도 의왕시 내손동 665-1 인 쇄 정인아이앤디 Tel : 02-3486-6791~4
※파본은 교환해 드립니다. 정가 : 5,000원