247 indicating that the energy efficiency of SC5 is 9 7% higher than that of SC4 Furthermore, the price of energy in SC5 is relatively lower than the SC2 scenario by some 4 9% (correspondingly, the en[.]
247 indicating that the energy efficiency of SC5 is 9.7% higher than that of SC4 Furthermore, the price of energy in SC5 is relatively lower than the SC2 scenario by some 4.9% (correspondingly, the energy efficiency in SC2 is higher than SC5 by 4.1%) The energy import dependency index is higher than that of the base year, SC1, SC3, and SC4 However, it is remains lower than that SC2 because of the same factors as noted in the analysis above More specifically, it is 8.4 units higher than the base year, 15.4 units higher than SC1, 25.5 units higher than SC3, and 19.6 units higher than SC4; however, it is 18.3 units lower than SC5 Finally, the energy diversity index is similar to the energy import dependency index Compared to SC2, the value of this indicator is negligible and the net value in the two scenarios is almost equal (0.29) However, this value is relatively high in comparison to the remaining scenarios It is 20.69 units higher than the base year, 31.8 units higher than SC1, 32.1 units higher than SC3, and 31.3 units higher than SC4 In general, the results of energy security in this scenario are quite satisfactory with respect to the remaining scenarios, with the exception of SC2 The factors influencing this improvement are the decreases in energy import dependency and energy diversity This is a completely feasible scenario for the future because energy security factors are inherited from the achievements of SC2 However, due to some impact from other factors, the energy security index of this scenario is not the best Table 7.5: Energy-Food-Water Securities: 2014–2030 (SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4, SC5) Energy security Energy Scenario accessi bi-lity (%) Base year Energy importdepende n-cy (%) Food security Energy Energy Energy afforda intensity diversity bi-lity (toe/Mn (Herfindahl (%) $) index) Energy efficien cy (%) Food accessi bi-lity (%) Food import depende n-cy (%) Water security Food afforda bi-lity (%) Water stress (%) Water Water Water afforda intensity efficie bi-lity (m3/US n-cy (%) $) (%) 4.6 14.9 4.2 273.6 0.37 74.0 8.7 18.7 41.2 59.0 0.25 24.1 23.4 4.3 16.5 3.9 480.3 0.43 70.7 8.3 19.2 39.5 62.2 0.23 27.0 19.5 6.2 10.9 4.9 234.8 0.29 85.8 8.2 19.0 36.8 66.3 0.18 35.0 21.3 3.8 19.4 3.6 487.1 0.43 70.2 10.2 15.7 44.8 65.8 0.20 28.4 19.1 4.1 17.6 3.6 461.7 0.42 71.9 8.4 18.9 41.1 52.1 0.31 21.5 27.4 5.6 13.4 4.9 253.4 0.29 81.6 9.7 17.6 42.5 55.9 0.30 23.5 24.8 (2014) SC1 BAU SC2 ENERGY SC3 FOOD SC4 WATER SC5 EFW Nexus Source: Estimates are based on modelling developed in this research