Assessment of Energy Security and Low Carbon Society Scenarios in Thailand and Sri Lanka

Sujeetha Selvakkumaran and Bundit Limmeechokchai

Abstract--The term energy security has permeated itself into

the energy landscape rapidly in the last decade due to the

imminent threat of scarcity of conventional energy supply. Low

carbon society (LCS) planning has become the key phrase in the

fight to mitigate climate change. This paper attempts to analyse

the effect of the reduction of C02 emissions from the power

sector on the energy security of Thailand and Sri Lanka. Both

countries have been modeled using a bottom-up integer

programming based optimization model called "Model for

Energy Supply Strategy Alternatives and their General

Environmental Impacts" (MESSAGE). Thailand and Sri Lanka

have been modeled as individual single region case studies with

five scenarios each, with mitigation of C02 emissions from the

power sector modeled with the reduction of 10%,20%,30% and

40% in comparison to the Reference scenario. In this paper,

energy security is measured using three main themes; namely oil

security, gas security and sustainability. Results of the assessment

indicate that whilst oil security and gas security are not

significantly affected by the low carbon policies implemented,

sustainability of the energy sector is improved for the case of

Thailand, while the same scenarios have significant beneficial

impacts on both the themes of oil security and sustainability for

the case of Sri Lanka.

Index Terms--Energy security, Low carbon society, oil

security, Sri Lanka, sustainability, Thailand

I. INTRODUCTION

ENERGY security is defined as the availability of energy

supply sources at an affordable price [1] but this

definition is deemed to be ambiguous [2], and the author goes

onto explain energy security as the new 'catch-phrase' in

global politics and emphasizes how big a role energy is going

to play in the current times. Many researchers have studied the

salient aspects of energy security in detail and a few amongst

them are [3]-[7]. In [6] the author speaks about the need to

place a temporal dimension on energy security, and explains

that energy security is a time bound entity. In another work,

the author stresses that researcher and policymakers should

not constrain themselves in thinking that energy security is

Authors would like to thank Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University and Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment for their financial support for this study.

S. Selvakkumaran is a Masters student at Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University, P.O. Box 12121, Pathum Thani, Thailand. (e-mail: Sujeetha.selvakkumaran@gmail.com)

B. Limmeechokchai is the Chair of the Mechanical Engineering Programme at Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University, P.O. Box 12121, Pathum Thani, Thailand. (e-mail: bundi@siit.ac.th).

affected only by the security of supply, but rather should look

at energy security in its entirety, encompassing elements such

as sustainability and developmental aspects as well [8].

A low carbon society (LCS) or low fossil-fuel economy is

a concept that refers to an economy which has a minimal

output of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the biosphere,

but specifically refers to the CO2 [9]. This society will adopt a

lifestyle that makes more use of energy efficient devices and

renewable energy technologies. Research studies normally list

energy security as a co-benefit of LCS, as LCS inherently

advises moving away from fossil fuels [10]. Reference [11]

states that to avoid the huge risk of climate change, the world

should reduce greenhouse gas emissions dramatically by the

middle of this century. Even though this LCS concept has

been adapted and accepted in a few developed Asian

countries, the developing Asian countries are just coming to

terms with this concept, or for that matter coming to grips

with the abatement of CO2 emissions. In this regard, the

effects CO2 mitigation measures in the power sector have on

the energy security of developing Asian countries like Sri

Lanka and Thailand have been analysed in this paper.

Sri Lanka is an island state in the Indian Ocean, with an

approximate population of 21 million as of 2009. The Sri

Lankan energy system is primarily a traditional biomass-based

energy system and the country does not possess any known

oil, gas or coal reserves. The renewable potential, especially

the major and small hydro potential is extensive and so is the

potential for biomass based electric generation [12]. Thailand

is a Southeast Asian country with an approximate population

of 60 million which has seen rapid economic and social

development in the past few decades. Thailand imports

approximately 57% of its total primary energy and oil and

natural gas (NG) accounted for nearly 90% of this imported

energy.

The objectives of this paper are to analyse and assess the

impact of CO2 emissions mitigation on energy security of

Thailand and Sri Lanka. For this purpose, the authors have

deemed that energy security consists of three main

contributory themes which are oil security, gas security and

sustainability. In the case of Sri Lanka, since Sri Lanka does

not use natural gas (NG) energy security will be assessed in

terms of sustainability and oil security. The sub-indicators for

each theme will be dealt with in detail at a later stage.

Both Sri Lanka and Thailand have been modeled as

individual single region case studies consisting of five

Copyright Notice: 978-1-4673-6008-11111$31.00 ©2012 IEEE

scenarios each. In addition to the Reference scenario the other

scenarios modeled are LCS 1 corresponding to 10% reduction

in CO2 emissions in comparison to the Reference scenario,

LCS2 corresponding to 20% reduction in CO2 emissions in

comparison to the Reference scenario and so on and so forth

up to LCS4. Both these countries have been modeled using

Model for Energy Supply Strategy Alternatives and their

General Environmental Impacts" (MESSAGE). It is an integer

programming based bottom-up optimization model which

effectively models supply side strategies for various scenarios.

The details about MESSAGE are given in [13].

II. METHODOLOGY

Sri Lankan and Thailand energy systems have been

modeled in MESSAGE for the purpose of this research study.

Prior to modeling certain socio-economic assumptions had to

be made and the [mal end-use demand levels had to be set.

The sub-section which follows deals with this aspect and also

presents the sub-indicators and themes which are used in this

research paper to assess energy security of both countries.

A. Data and assumptions

Thailand's socio-economic assumptions are given in Table

I, and the demands of different end-use categories are given in

Table II.

TABLE 1 THE SOCIo-EcONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THAILAND [141

Ye. Popa1don GDPiaUSD billion

2007 60.9 111.63

2010 61.6 123.23

2015 62.5 141M

2020 64.1 177.95

2025 65.1 223.89

2030 67.4 211.69

The Sri Lankan socio-economic assumptions are given in

Table III, and the demands of different end-use categories are

given in Table IV. In addition to this it should be noted that in

the LCS scenario conventional coal thermal power plants

proposed for both Sri Lanka and Thailand are replaced with

clean coal technology such as Integrated Gasification

Combined Cycle (lGCC) and IGCC with Carbon Capture and

Storage (CCS) technologies.

B. Assessment of Energy Security

As mentioned before in the introduction, this paper

assesses energy security along three main themes which are

oil security, gas security and sustainability. The appropriate

sub-indicators for the main themes have been selected to

accurately indicate the levels of energy security.

2

TABLE II DEMANDS OF END-USES IN THAILAND'S ENERGY SYSTEM [141

Daoand Daoandia AmmaJ. GmwIb. Rate .

s 2007(ktoe) . . 11453.32

5260.45 4.5

Households 2411.53 3.0 Comrncmc 3686.48 4.0

0Ihc:n 94.86 3.0 Oil 32318.00

6691.00 4.0 Howseholds 1435.00 1.7

Cornrneww 770.00 3.0 23422.00 4.4

NBbmIlGu 2594.00 2386.00 7.3 208.00 10.0

BiOJllllllS 11645.00 5936.00 4.1

Howseholds 5709.00 -0.1

Lianitc 1000.00

1000.00 5.3 Coal 5981.00

5981.00 5.3

TABLE l l l SOCIo-ECONOMlC ASSUMPTIONS OF SRI LANKA

v., Pupuhdiun GDPia iDmilliou USDbillicm

2007 20.0 32.70

2010 20.6 37.85

201� 21-7 411-11

2020 22.8 61.66

2025 23.9 78.70

20..10 2�'-2. 100-44

TABLE IV DEMANDS OF END-USES IN THE SRI LANKAN ENERGY SYSTEMS

DmImd Dmwdin GmwtbDdll 2007(ktgo) par IIIIIDII1 (')i)

..... . .

704.70

IDd1IIIIy 254.30 6.0

Houlldloldll 274.10 6.0

CoIIIII'ICRD 160.30 6.0

0IbDn 16.00 6.0

Oil 1276.85

IDd1IIIIy 557."3 4.0

Hou.moJds 354 ... 6 3.0

TImIpmt 354 ... 6 5.0

0IbDn 10.50 2.0

BioDIIIU 4930.00

IDd1IIIIy 1447.00 1.0

Houlldloldll 3483.00 -2.0

1) Oil Security

Oil security, in the case of Thailand is an important theme

as Thailand depends extensively on oil for transportation and

electricity generation, even though it should be noted that in

Copyright Notice: 978-1-4673-6008-1Il11$3l.00 ©2012 IEEE

the recent times the dependence on oil for electricity

generation has declined. The sub-indicators in the theme of oil

security are Oil Supply Risk Indicator (OSRl), Oil Import

Intensity (011), Oil Intensity (01), Oil Share (OS) [15], and

Net Oil Import Dependence (NOID) [3], [15]. It should be

noted that OSRl is positively correlated with oil security, and

the rest of the four sub-indicators are negatively correlated

with oil security, i.e. higher values of those indicators mean

lesser oil security. The formulation and the formulae of these

indicators are extensively are found in [15].

2) Gas Security

In order to maintain consistency and comparability, the

sub-indicators proposed in [5] have been modified to mirror

the oil security indicators mentioned above. Since the use of

NG and oil in Thailand's energy system are at similar levels

the authors have formulated five sub-indicators which will be

used to measure gas security. The indicators are Gas Supply

Risk Indicator (GSRI), Gas Import Intensity (GIl), Gas

Intensity (GI), Gas Share (GS), and Net Gas Import

Dependency (NGID).

3) Sustainability

Sustainability is espoused to be a vital element in

conceptualising energy security by [8], [16] the tenets of

energy sustainability have been borrowed from [17] and [18].

The sub-indicators utilized to assess sustainability are primary

energy intensity (PEl), primary energy per capita (PECap),

diversification of fuels (DoFS), non-carbon fuel share

(NCFS), renewable fuel share (RFS), CO2 emissions intensity

(CEInt) and CO2 emissions per capita (CECap). The formulae

and the methodology associated with the sub-indicators are

extensively dealt with in [17].

III. RESULTS

The results are presented in this section under two main

subsections; namely the results for Sri Lanka and the results

for Thailand.

A. Results - Sri Lanka

The total levelized cost for Sri Lanka for all scenarios are

in Fig. 1.

LCSl

1OD77U1

102032UJ

1017720

301li090

)7151100

J2500000 37:;(10000

TIIWI.cft:II.d c.t .. 1l8 ....... Fig. I. Total levelized costs of Sri Lanka.

It can be seen that there is a clear decrease in the total

levelized cost of the energy system for the LCS scenarios in

comparison to the Reference scenario. Another fact to be

3

noted is that with the increase of the percentage of reduction,

i.e. from LCS 1 to LCS2 there is a marginal increase in the

total levelized cost, yet even in LCS4, the scenario with 40%

reduction in CO2 emissions, the total levelized cost does not

reach the cost incurred in the Reference scenario.

If one were to analyse the marginal savings as kton of CO2

emissions abatement per one US Dollar of cost saving for Sri

Lanka, from Table V, it can be seen that the trend is that the

savings progressively increase from LCS 1 to LCS4. This

implies that the reduction in CO2 emissions per unit cost of

saving increases from LCSI to LCS4. This indicates that in

the case of Sri Lanka, not only is it beneficial to implement

strategies to reduce CO2 emissions in the power sector, the

more the percentage of reduction, the more reduction per unit

cost. The primary reason for this is the ready availability of

renewable sources in terms of power generation in Sri Lanka.

TABLEY MARGINAL REDUCTION IN CO2 EMISSIONS IN THE LCS SCENARIOS - SRI

LANKA

KtonofCO:! LCSt LCS2 LCS3 LCS4 mducti.oo. p ..

0.0160 C).0170 0.0188 0.0206 USD of IUlY'inp;

Next, energy security will be assessed for Sri Lanka along

the themes of oil security and sustainability.

1) Oil Security - Sri Lanka

Oil security of Sri Lanka is measured through the sub­

indicators 011, 01, OS and NOID. These indicators show

considerable improvement in the four LCS scenarios, when

compared to the Reference scenario. Yet it has to be added

that OSRl remains at constant zero as Sri Lanka does not

possess oil reserves. Table VI gives the results of 011 and OS

of Sri Lanka. TABLEYI

RESULTS OF 011 AND OS FOR SRI LANKA

Oil Import Intmsity as "

� LCSI LCSl LCS3 LCS4

2007 7.63 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88

2010 727 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

2015 7.02 4.99 4.99 4.99 4.99

2020 6.56 "'.97 "'.97 "'.97 11.97

2025 6.18 4.94 4.94 4.94 4.94

2030 5.88 4.90 4.90 4.90 4.90

OilSbmlu"

2007 45.76 38.52 38.52 38.52 38.52

2010 48.01 34.54 34.54 34.54 34.54

2015 52.38 36.48 36.48 36.48 36.48

2020 50.94 38.44 38M 31M 31.48

2025 49.55 40.36 40.35 40.39 40.95

2030 48.65 42.63 43.20 43.2' 45.90

Copyright Notice: 978-1-4673-6008-11111$31.00 ©2012 IEEE

From the table above it can be seen that in terms of 011,

there is considerable improvement in the LCS scenarios when

compared to the Reference scenario, but amongst the four

LCS scenarios there is no improvement. Another interesting

analysis of the results in terms of OS is that it is lowest in

LCSl, but again begins increasing from LCSI to LCS4. Both

011 and OS are negatively correlated to oil security, that is, a

higher value means lower oil security. Hence, in terms of the

Oil Share, the most beneficial scenario would be LCS1.

2) Sustainability - Sri Lanka

In terms of sustainability, PEl and PECap of Sri Lanka

show a decrease from the Reference scenario in all other LCS

scenarios, which implies that the sustainability improves as

PEl and PECap are negatively correlated with sustainability.

But amongst them the improvement in the two indices are less

significant.

The two indices NCFS and RFS also show marked

improvement in the LCS scenarios in comparison to the

Reference scenario, which is to be understood as most

renewable technologies are low carbon technologies at the

level of generation. Also, in terms of maximum renewable and

non-carbon share in the generation-mix, LCS3 is computed to

be more beneficial. TABLE VII

RESULTS OF NCFS AND RFS FOR SRI LANKA

Ncn_"

llafimu:D LCS1 LCS2 LCS3 LCS4

2007 50.83 64.48 64.48 64.48 64.48

2010 52.01 72.A6 72.A6 72.A6 72.A6

2015 50.03 72M 72.04 72.04 72.04

2020 54.68 65.08 65.08 65.08 65.31

2025 52.95 5492 54.89 54.90 57.85

2030 41.92 5093 54.15 54..2fi 51.20

1lIS_"

RdnDce LCS1 LCS2 LCS3 LCS4

2007 29..2fi 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23

2010 27.63 45.59 45.59 45.59 45.59

2015 26.82 5033 5033 50.33 50.33

2020 36.13 46.53 46.53 46.53 46.81

2025 38.30 38.00 37.98 37.99 40.59

2030 30.A6 37.42 41.07 41.22 37.07

But an interesting point to be noted by the technologists

and policymakers is that the reduction of renewable energy

share as percentage from 2015 onwards. The trend across all

five scenarios suggests that unless engineers and technologists

come up with new technologies to harvest more renewable

energy more efficiently, it is going to be difficult for the

renewable energy to feature prominently in the energy mix.

This point is illustrated in Fig. 2.

4

55

�2007 -45 � �2010

; �2015

35 �2020

�202�

"'2030 2� +-----.------.-----.-----.-----.

"Refurauz lCS 1 1£82 1£&1 rcS4

Fig. 2. The values of RFS across the modeled years of Sri Lanka.

As it is to be expected, CEInt and CECap show a large

improvement in the four successive LCS scenarios when

compared to the Reference scenario.

From this it can be concluded that sustainability, oil

security and energy security in general improve significantly

with the introduction of the LCS scenarios in the power sector

of Sri Lanka.

B. Thailand

The total levelized cost of all scenarios of Thailand is given

in Fig3.

I LaK

LCI3

LCSl

LaD

.....

$.m_ nllDll

211 ClIO

�U61001 344 �

250_100 m_1OO _DIDO 325100Il10 BIOI.

Fig. 3. The total levelized cost of Thailand.

Unlike in the case of Sri Lanka, total levelized cost of

Thailand, exhibits a different trend. Whilst the LCS scenarios

have a much lower total levelized cost, the lowest amongst

them is LCS2, instead of LCS1. Once LCS2 scenario is

passed, the total levelized cost increases for LCS3 and LCS4,

nevertheless still remaining lower than the Reference scenario.

The fact that LCS2 has the lowest levelized cost might imply

that in terms of C02 emissions mitigation from the power

sector of Thailand, 20% reduction targets might be optimal.

When analyzing the marginal C02 emissions reduction per

unit of cost saving in comparison to the Reference scenario, it

can be seen that just like Sri Lanka, LCS4 is the most

beneficial in Thailand as well. (See Table VIII).

TABLE VIII MARGINAL REDUCTION IN CO2 EMISSIONS IN THE LCS SCENARlOS­

THAILAND

Ktonof"Co.z LCSI LCS2 LeS3 LCS4 reduc:Iion pa-

0.0139 0_0180 0.0252 0.m39 usn of"lUIVine:

Copyright Notice: 978-1-4673-6008-11111$31.00 ©2012 IEEE

1) Oil Security - Thailand

Oil security for Thailand, when measured through the five

separate sub-indicators does not show any significant

improvement, which is an interesting point that needs to be

considered by policymakers. Table IX reports the 011 and OS

of Thailand for the five scenarios.

TABLE IX

RESULTS OF OIl AND OS FOR THAILAND

ODu"

R· ..... Wial LCSI LCS2 LCS3 LCS4

2007 1130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2010 11.24 9.82 9.82 9.82 9.82

201' 10.'1 11.83 11.83 11.83 11.83

2020 11.1' 11." 11." 11." 11."

202' 11A9 11.28 11.28 11.28 11.28

2030 11.26 11.02 11.02 11.02 11.02

OSu"

RIII&acJaae LCSI LCS2 LCS3 LCS4

2007 39.17 3931 40.28 4OA8 39.61

2010 40.25 40.1' 40.62 40.73 40.91

201' 40.20 42.13 43.12 43.23 433'

2020 40.86 41.'9 42.11 42.06 42AO

202' 4OA2 41.06 41.'1 41A8 41.7'

2030 39.66 39.69 40.84 40.85 40.71

The results show that there is no drastic improvement in

011 in the LCS scenarios, and in fact OS increases slightly in

the LCS scenarios. But this OS increase has another

contributing factor which is the gradual decrease in the overall

primary energy use. Since OS is computed as the ratio

between overall primary oil use and total primary energy use,

a decrease in primary energy will also lead to the increase in

OS and for Thailand this is the case. But still the fact that the

effect of reduction in oil use does not mask the reduction in

primary energy use is noteworthy. Another important aspect is

that across all scenarios OS is maintained along the same

values, that is, the share of oil is almost held constant and

under 45%, which augurs well for Thailand's energy system.

2) Gas Security - Thailand

Gas security of Thailand is reported in Table X. Again, the

trend of GIl and GS is quite similar to the trend exhibited by

the corresponding oil security indicators. There is a slight

improvement in the GIl indicator in the LCS scenarios in

comparison to the Reference scenario, but GS does not show

any visible improvement. Moreover there is a slight increase,

and the same explanation afforded to OS in this matter can be

extended to GS as well.

5

3) Sustainability - Thailand

In the theme of sustainability, results of NCFS and RFS are

reported in Table XI.

TABLE X

RESULTS oFGll ANDGS OF THAILAND

Gn .. "

Rcli:R:Bcc LCSI LCS2 LCS3 LCS4

2007 3.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2010 3.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 5.11 5.11 3.98 4.85 5.43

2020 ti54 �'U3 5.46 ti03 6.62

2025 6.51 6.31 6.31 7.04 7.19

2030 7.06 6.96 6.101 6.84 6..84

GS .. "

� LCSI LCS2 LCS3 LCS1

2007 33.64 28.42 31.40 33.82 31.90

2010 32.56 27.58 25.31 27.12 2926

2015 29.98 26.99 23.5' 25.10 26.71

2020 28.15 26.32 25.39 28.01 31.00

2025 29.55 29.32 29.61 33.00 33.93

2030 31.72 31.96 32.30 32.31 3220

TABLE Xl

NCFS AND RFS RESULTS FOR THAILAND

NCFS_"

RcliRnce LCSI LCS2 LCS3 LCS4

2007 12.52 18.13 17.06 17.08 19.43

2010 14..D4 20m 2.1.81 2.1-82 2.1-84

2015 lU3 19.D2 2123 2125 2126

2020 12.59 16A2 18.70 11.91 17.99

2025 13A6 12.75 14.93 14.97 14.72

2030 15.23 15.1-1 1-1.19 16.10 15.-15

1lFS_"

Rcli1rmGC LCSI LCS2 LCS3 LCS4

2007 9.47 1229 10.32 10.34 12.68

2010 9.32 13.93 16.84 16.85 16.87

2015 10.87 13.78 15.19 15.20 15.21

2020 8.04 11.99 13.35 13A5 12.59

2025 9Al 9.D6 10.33 10.33 10.21

2030 11.19 11.96 11.16 12A2 11.7'

These results show that both NCFS and RFS show

improvement, especially in the early years 20lO and 2015, but

in both indices LCS3 has fared the best, by scoring the highest

percentage in the energy mix in both non-carbon and

renewable categories. Another interesting point to note is that

the non-carbon share and renewable share of Thailand's

Copyright Notice: 978-1-4673-6008-1Il11$3l.00 ©2012 IEEE

energy system is considerably lower than that of Sri Lanka.

One reason for this is the fact that renewable energy is highly

site specific, and Thailand does not possess the same extent of

renewable resources as that of Sri Lanka. Also, Thailand has a

very mature and developed energy system, where the part of

traditional biomass is quite limited and is on the decline. This

might be another reason for the low levels of renewable share

in the energy mix.

IV. CONCLUSION

This paper has analysed the impact of LCS measures on

energy security of two energy import dependent Asian

countries, namely Sri Lanka and Thailand. Both countries

were modeled as individual case studies using the MESSAGE

model. The results for both countries have some common

threads and some varied trends. In the Sri Lankan model,

results show that LCS scenarios have some effect on the

improvement on oil security, albeit a very small effect. The

best performing scenario in terms of oil security is LCS4. In

the case of sustainability theme of energy security, the effects

of LCS measures are significant, and the renewable share in

the energy mix has an increase of 10% from the Reference

scenario in LCS3. In terms of the marginal savings due to the

reduction in the CO2 emissions from the power sector, the

savings, that is 20.6 tC02/USD, is highest in LCS4 scenario.

In the results for the case study of Thailand, the effects of

LCS scenarios on oil security and gas security are very small.

Therein lays the difference between Sri Lanka and Thailand.

This suggests that when assessing or planning for LCS

measures and co-benefits in energy security, allowances

should be made for the differences in energy systems. Since

Thailand has a mature energy system with extensive use of oil

and gas in other end-use sectors besides the power sector,

LCS measures in the power sector do not have the same

beneficial effect. Yet, in the case of sustainability LCS

scenarios induce an improvement in the sustainability of the

energy system. In comparison to the Reference scenario, LCS

2 scenario has 1 % increase in renewable share in the energy

mix of Thailand. In terms of the marginal savings due to the

reduction in the CO2 emissions from the power sector, the

savings that is 33.9 tC02/USD is achieved in LCS4.

V. REFERENCES

[I] International Energy Agency. GlossalY of Terms. 201 I [cited 201 I 18th of June]; Available from: HYPERLINK http://www. iea.org/glossary /glossary _ E.asp.

[2] MuIIer-Kraenner, S., Energy Security: Re-Measuring the World. 2007: Earthscan. 156.

[3] APERC, A Quest for Energy Security in the 2i st Century - resources

and constraints, A.A. Aponte, Editor. 2006. [4] Bielecki, J., Energy security: is the woif at the door? The Quarterly

Review of Economics and Finance, 2002. 42(2): p. 235-250. [5] Cabalu, H., indicators of security of natural gas supply in Asia. Energy

Policy, 2006. 38(1): p. 2 I 8-225. [6] Chester, L., Conceptualising energy security and making explicit its

polysemic nature. Energy Policy, 20 I O. 38(2): p. 887-895. [7] Jansen, J.e., W.G.V. Arkel, and M.G. Boots, Designing indicators of

Long term energy supply security. 2004, Netherlands Environment Assessment agency, MNP.

6

[8] Vivoda, V., Evaluating energy security in the ASia-Pacific region: A

novel methodological approach. Energy Policy, 2010. 38(9): p. 5258-5263.

[9] Low-carbon Society Vision 2030 - Thailand. 2010: Thailand. [10] King, P., Low Carbon Development Path in ASia-Pacific. 2009, Institute

for Global Environment Studies. [1 I] Gomi, K., K. Shimada, and Y. Matsuoka, A low-carbon scenario

creation method for a local-scale economy and its application in Kyoto

city. Energy Policy. 38(9): p. 4783-4796. [12] Wijayatunga, P.D.e., W.J.L.S. Fernando, and R.M. Shrestha,

Greenhouse gas emission mitigation in the Sri Lanka power sector

supply side and demand side options. Energy Conversion and Management, 2003. 44(20): p. 3247-3265.

[13] IAEA, MESSAGE User Manual. 2007, IAEA. [14] APERC, APEC Energy Demand and Supply Outlook, D.A.F. Jr, Editor.

2006, Asia Pacific Energy Research Centre: Tokyo. [15] Gupta, E., Oil vulnerability index of oil-importing countries. Energy

Policy, 2008. 36(3): p. 1195-1211. [16] Von Hippel, D., T. Savage, and P. Hayes, introduction to the Asian

Energy Security project: Project organization and methodologies.

Energy Pol icy. In Press, Corrected Proof. [17] IAEA, et aI., Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development:

Guidelines and Methodologies. 2004, IAEA, l EA, Eurostat: Vienna. [18] Vera, I. and L. Langlois, Energy indicators for sustainable

development. Energy, 2007. 32(6): p. 875-882.

VI. BIOGRAPHIES

Bundit Limmeechokchai was born in Thailand. He graduated from the King Mongkut's Institute of Technology; North Bangkok with First Class Honours is Mechanical Engineering. From there, he went on to read for his Masters in Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand and then went on to read for his Doctorate in engineering in the same institution as well. His research expertise includes energy technologies, energy efficiency, energy economics,

planning and policy, modeling of energy and environment systems, renewable energy, low-carbon technologies, demand-side management, integrated resource planning, and CO2 mitigation. Currently he is the Chair of the Mechanical Engineering Programme in Sirindhorn International, Institute of Technology, Thammasat University, Thailand.

Sujeetha Selvakkumaran was born in Sri Lanka on the 2 I" of July, I 985. She graduated from University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, with 2nd Upper Honours in Mechanical Engineering. Currently she is reading for her Masters in Thailand. Her research interests are energy security in the developing world, energy policy and planning.

Copyright Notice: 978-1-4673-6008-1Il11$3l.00 ©2012 IEEE