energies

Article
Analysis of Fossil Fuel Energy Consumption and
Environmental Impacts in European Countries †
Florinda Martins 1, * , Carlos Felgueiras 2 , Miroslava Smitkova 3 and Nídia Caetano 2,4
1 REQUIMTE/LAQV/ISEP, School of Engineering, P. Porto 4249-015, Portugal
2 CIETI/ISEP, School of Engineering, P. Porto 4249-015, Portugal; mcf@isep.ipp.pt
3 Institute of Power and Applied Electrical Engineering, FEI - Slovak University of Technology, Ilkovicova 3,
812 19 Bratislava 1, Slovakia; miroslava.smitkova@suba.sk
4 LEPABE-Laboratory for Process Engineering, Environment, Biotechnology and Energy, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal; nsc@isep.ipp.pt
* Correspondence: ffm@isep.ipp.pt; Tel.: +00351 228340500
† This paper is an extension of the paper presented in ICEER2018 and published in Energy Procedia, vol. 153.




Received: 15 January 2019; Accepted: 8 March 2019; Published: 13 March 2019


Abstract: The use of fossil fuels as the main source of energy for most countries has caused several
negative environmental impacts, such as global warming and air pollution. Air pollution causes
many health problems, causing social and economic negative effects. Worldwide efforts are being
made to avoid global warming consequences through the establishment of international agreements
that then lead to local policies adapted to the development of each signing nation. In addition, there
is a depletion of nonrenewable resources which may be scarce or nonexistent in future generations.
The preservation of resources, which is a common goal of the Circular Economy strategy and of
sustainable development, is not being accomplished nowadays. In this work, the calculation of
indicators and mathematical and statistical analysis were applied to clarify and evidence the trends,
provide information for the decision-making process, and increase public awareness. The fact that
European countries do not possess abundant reserves of fossil fuels will not change, but the results
of this analysis can evolve in the future. In this work, fossil fuel energy consumption, fossil fuel
depletion, and their relationship with other variables, such as energy dependence and share of
renewable energy in gross final energy consumption, were analyzed for 29 European countries.
Furthermore, it was possible to conclude that many European countries still depend heavily on fossil
fuels. Significant differences were not found in what concerns gross inland consumption per capita
when the Kruskal–Wallis test was applied. It was possible to estimate that by 2050 (considering Jazz
scenario) it will only remain approximately 14% of oil proven reserves, 72% of coal proven reserves
and 18% of gas proven reserves. Given the small reserves of European countries on fossil fuels, if they
need to use them, they will fast disappear.

Keywords: fossil fuels; low carbon energy systems; sustainable energy; sustainable development

1. Introduction
Most countries’ energy systems, either developed or in development, are based on fossil fuels [1,2].
In spite of their qualities, e.g., good operational control in thermal plants [3], their use has many
problems which have been analyzed and addressed in many studies [4]. These problems, such as the
environmental impacts, scarcity, supply risk, and instability of prices and markets, put fossil fuels
at the center of the shift to low carbon economies. Khan et al. [5] found that, in Pakistan, there is a
strong relationship between energy consumption, air pollution, water resources, and natural resource
rents. Zheng et al. [6] used panel data regression analysis on a sample of 26 Chinese provinces and

Energies 2019, 12, 964; doi:10.3390/en12060964 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, 964 2 of 11

four centrally-controlled municipalities in the period from 2002 to 2011 and found empirical support
for the positive impacts of provincial energy saving regulations and two environmental standards on
the improvement of local air quality.
The use of fossil fuels is responsible for environmental problems such as global warming and
air pollution, which cause health problems and affect the quality of life of populations. Lott et al. [7]
concluded that by applying adequate changes in technology for residential heating, the UK would meet
its decarbonization targets by 2050, and there would be a 40% and 45% decrease in PM10 (Particulate
matter with a diameter less than 10 µm) and PM2.5 (Particulate matter with a diameter less than
2.5 µm) pollution, respectively, between 2010 and 2050. Contrarily, limited change in the pollution
profile for transportation would be observed if the established policy strategies were applied in that
sector. Li et al. [8] concluded that Chinese government policy plays a major role in the long-term and
more permanent SO2 emission decline, through modification of industrial structure, change to cleaner
energy sources, population growth limitation, and regulation of the number and emissions of vehicles.
The reforms introduced in the Beijing economic structure, aiming to decrease the ratio of secondary
industry, show that the policies implemented by the government are the major driver to improve air
quality. Zhang et al. [9] analyzed the difference between the effects of trade and trade-related emissions
on premature deaths attributable to air pollution in three regions of China and concluded that there
is a strong and broad impact of domestic trade on regional air quality. This justifies the need for a
comprehensive consideration of supply chains in designing policy to mitigate the negative health
impacts of air pollution in China.
Besides the environmental and health problems, fossil fuels are unevenly distributed, which
increases the concerns about energy security due to their key role in today’s energy production
systems [10]. Moreover, they are nonrenewable resources which raises the problem of their availability
for this and future generations. Their complete depletion should be avoided, thus contributing to the
decrease in the environmental impact in the corresponding impact category. The instability of markets
and prices is also a drawback in their use, causing negative economic impacts.
All the above-mentioned issues contribute to today’s unsustainable energy systems and to the
quest for new solutions that will reduce the economic, social, and environmental negative impacts
of energy systems, thus increasing sustainability. Achieving sustainable energy systems still remains
a challenge for the majority of countries, in spite of the efforts made by governments, international
agencies, and other stakeholders. In the last few decades, new policies have been implemented
and incentives for renewable energy have been granted through support mechanisms, for example,
feed-in-tariffs. Many other strategies, such as demand side measures and smart grids, have been
addressed to overcome the challenges that a change to low carbon energy systems create [11,12].
In order to verify if the pathways chosen are being effective, it is necessary to find ways of
evaluating energy systems and energy policies. The approaches used usually define a set of indicators
to be applied, and then the performance of each country can be assessed and compared. The goal of
such a set of indicators is to evaluate the sustainability of energy systems and can include indicators
about energy efficiency, energy availability, and renewable energy. Some of these are applicable
on a global scale and others in a local area, such as a country [13,14]. Economical aspects, such
as subsidies, can directly affect the selected indicators and the progress toward more sustainable
energy systems [15,16]. Projection and scenarios for the future are also techniques frequently
used, because environmental concerns (greenhouse gas emissions), social issues (electrification rate
and accessibility to energy at fair prices), and energy policies and investments are very closely
linked [17–19]. Technological advances and innovation can also contribute to new solutions and
make new resources available. All these issues are necessary to define possible pathways in the future.
European countries have been at the edge of these changes and renewable energy sources are a
key aspect in new energy policy and projected pathways [20]. However, fossil fuels are still crucial
in energy systems [21]. This work analyzes fossil fuel information and applies statistical tools to
show the present situation in European countries. Although there is information available in open
Energies 2019, 12, 964 3 of 11

literature, it has not been analyzed under such a mathematical approach. The calculation of indicators,
merit figures, and mathematical and statistical analysis are mainly used to clarify and emphasize
the trends, problems, and provide condensed information that can be useful in the decision-making
process. Therefore, this work analyzes fossil fuel energy consumption (oil, solid fuels, and gas), fossil
fuel depletion in European countries, and their relationship with other variables, such as energy
dependence and share of renewable energy. It also analyzes the progress made by individual European
countries toward a low carbon energy system. Projections for the future and their impacts are also
addressed in this paper. A Kruskal–Wallis test was applied to assess the effect of several factors on
gross inland consumption per capita.

2. Materials and Methods

Energy systems are changing, and it is important to quantify and assess those variations,
measuring the progress toward the established goals. Indicators can be a useful tool to achieve
that purpose. These indicators can analyze energy systems globally, such as the energy mix for a given
country, considering the different sources of energy: fossil (fuel, coal, and gas), nuclear, biofuels and
waste, renewable (hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, etc.), or parts of the energy system (renewable energy
sources) [22]. Another indicator is energy dependence, which is important because it can significantly
affect the development of countries, since it increases their vulnerability to price instability and supply
ruptures. Share of renewable energy in the gross final energy consumption is an important indicator,
since it can represent the pathway to lower carbon energy systems. Concerning fossil fuels, there
are some indicators that are very important, such as the fossil fuel energy mix, fossil fuel energy
consumption, and fossil fuel depletion.
These indicators can be defined as follows:

• Energy mix: contribution of each source of energy to total energy;

• Energy dependence: the percentage of imports in total energy consumption;
• Share of renewable energy: the percentage of renewable energy in gross final energy
consumption [22];
• Fossil fuel energy mix: the contribution of each fossil fuel source of energy to the fossil energy;
• Fossil fuel energy consumption: the quotient between the usage of fossil fuels (oil, solid fuels, and
gas) and gross inland energy consumption (Equation (1)):

Esolid f uels + Eoil + Egas

Fossil f uel energy consumption (%) = (1)
Gross inland consumption

where Esolids fuels is the energy consumption from solid fuels, Etotal petroleum products is the energy
consumption from petroleum products, and Egas is the energy consumption from gas.
• Depletion of fossil fuels: the quotient between fossil fuel reserves (proven) and gross annual
production (Equation (2)). There are three indicators, one for oil, one for gas, and one for coal:

Fossil f uel reserves

Fossil f uel depletion (years) = (2)
Gross annual production

Data, relative to the year 2016, were gathered for several European countries from Eurostat [23]
and used in this study. Furthermore, statistical data from BP were used, dated from the year 2017 [24].
Two of the mathematical tools (the software used was SPSS Statistics 25) used in this work were
Pearson correlation and Spearman’s correlation [25]. Pearson r correlation is applied to assess a
linear relation between two variables. Pearson correlation is more reliable when the distribution is
normal; however, since there are different degrees of violation of normality, both methods were applied.
Spearman’s correlation also assesses the relationship between two variables, yet it is a nonparametric
method and does not require a normal distribution. Significant correlation between variables exist
 Energies 2019, 12, 964 4 of 11

Energies 2019, 12 FOR PEER REVIEW 4

when the p value is lower than 0.05. If variables are negatively correlated, this means that the higher
144 one
test of them
that is the
is used to lower
compare thetwo
other
or one
more will be. To assess
independent normality,
groups. It can the Shapiro–Wilk
be used testifwas
to determine used.
there are
145 Another statistical
statistically tool used
significant was the Kruskal–Wallis
differences between groups test(two
[26].or
This is a nonparametric
more) testindependent
of a categorical that is used
146 to compare
variable ontwo or more independent
a continuous dependent groups.
variable.It In
canthis
be used
study,to determine if there are
four independent statistically
variables were
147 significant differences between groups (two or more) of a categorical independent
considered, namely energy dependence, fossil fuel energy consumption, share of renewable energy, variable on a
148 continuous dependent
and fossil fuel reserves,variable.
and theIn this study,variable
dependent four independent
was the Gross variables
Inlandwere considered,
Consumption namely
(GIC) per
149 energy
capita. dependence, fossil fuel energy consumption, share of renewable energy, and fossil fuel reserves,
and the dependent variable was the Gross Inland Consumption (GIC) per capita.
150 3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
151 3.1. Fossil Fuel Energy Mix for European Countries
3.1. Fossil Fuel Energy Mix for European Countries
152 Figure 1 shows the fossil fuel energy mix for the European Union countries.
Figure 1 shows the fossil fuel energy mix for the European Union countries.

Norway
Iceland
United Kingdom
Sweden
Finland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Austria
Netherlands
Hungary
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Cyprus
Italy
Croatia
France
Spain
Greece
Ireland
Estonia
Germany
Denmark
Czech Republic
Bulgaria
Belgium

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Solid fuels Gas Total petroleum products

153
Figure 1. Fossil fuel energy mix in the European Union countries (adapted from [21]).
154 Figure 1. Fossil fuel energy mix in the European Union countries (adapted from [21]).
The indicators were calculated using data (2016) that were gathered for several European countries
155 from The indicators
Eurostat were calculated
[23]. Considering using consumption
the energy data (2016) that were
of oil, gathered
solid forgas
fuels, and several
in theEuropean
selected
156 countries from Eurostat [23]. Considering the energy consumption of oil, solid fuels,
European countries, it is possible to conclude that in most of the countries considered the oil presents and gas in the
157 selected
the European
highest countries,
percentage. Onlyit in
is possible to conclude
four countries, solidthat in most
fuels of the
present countries
a higher considered
percentage, the oil
namely
158 presents the highest percentage. Only in four countries, solid fuels present a higher
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, and Poland, which is due to the local availability of solid fuels. percentage,
159 namely
In Bulgaria,and
Italy, Hungary, the Slovakia,
Czech Republic, Estonia,
gas presents and Poland,
the highest which In
percentage. is due
many tocountries
the local the
availability of
solid fuels’
160 solid fuels. is
percentage Invery
Italy,small,
Hungary,
as canandbe Slovakia, gas presents
seen in Figure 1, which theis highest percentage.
a positive In many
aspect since solid countries
fuels are
161 the solid fuels’ percentage is very small, as can be seen in Figure 1, which is a positive
recognized as having more severe environmental and social negative impacts. The European directives aspect since
162 solid fuels
issued towardarethe
recognized as having
use of cleaner sourcesmore severecan
of energy environmental
be indicated as and socialthat
a factor negative impacts.
contributed The
to this
163 European[27].
situation directives issued toward the use of cleaner sources of energy can be indicated as a factor
164 that contributed to this situation [27].
3.2. Fossil Fuel Energy Consumption Indicator
165 3.2. Fossil Fuel Energy Consumption Indicator
The fossil fuel energy consumption (FFEC) was calculated for the 29 selected European countries
166 (shown Thein fossil
Figurefuel
2). energy consumption (FFEC) was calculated for the 29 selected European
167 countries (shown in Figure 2).
 Energies 2019, 12, 964 5 of 11
Energies 2019, 12 FOR PEER REVIEW 5

Fossil fuel energy consumption % 100

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Czech Republic

Luxembourg
Greece

Slovakia
Belgium
Bulgaria

Hungary

United Kingdom
Denmark

Estonia
Ireland

Croatia

Cyprus

Netherlands
Spain

Poland

Iceland
France

Lithuania

Portugal

Slovenia

Finland
Italy

Norway
Austria
Latvia

Romania

Sweden
Germany

168
Figure 2. Fossil fuel energy consumption indicator in the European Union countries.
169 Figure 2. Fossil fuel energy consumption indicator in the European Union countries.

It is possible to conclude that Iceland and Sweden are the only countries where the FFEC indicator
170 It is possible to conclude that Iceland and Sweden are the only countries where the FFEC
is lower than 40% (to emphasize this fact their bars are green). In fact, Iceland has a value even lower
171 indicator is lower than 40% (to emphasize this fact their bars are green). In fact, Iceland has a value
than 20%. There are only three countries with FFEC indicator values between 40% and 60%, namely
172 even lower than 20%. There are only three countries with FFEC indicator values between 40% and
France, Finland, and Norway. All the other countries have FFEC values above 60%. Ireland, Cyprus,
173 60%, namely France, Finland, and Norway. All the other countries have FFEC values above 60%.
Poland, and the Netherlands have values higher than 90% for this indicator (due to the high value
174 Ireland, Cyprus, Poland, and the Netherlands have values higher than 90% for this indicator (due to
of the indicator the bars are red to emphasize this fact), which can be attributed to a higher local
175 the high value of the indicator the bars are red to emphasize this fact), which can be attributed to a
availability of fossil fuels.
176 higher local availability of fossil fuels.
3.3. Fossil Fuel Depletion
177 3.3. Fossil Fuel Depletion
The European countries do not possess many fossil fuel resources, as can be verified in Table 1.
178 The3European
Figure countries
presents oil, do not
coal, and gaspossess many
depletion forfossil fuel resources,
the world and some as can be verified
European in Table
countries 1.
(data
179 Figure 3 presents
from [24]). oil, countries,
Eurasian coal, and gas
suchdepletion for the Federation,
as the Russian world and somewereEuropean countries
not considered (data
in this from
analysis.
180 [24]).
As shown in Figure 3, the result for coal depletion in Spain is very high (>500 years), becauseAs
Eurasian countries, such as the Russian Federation, were not considered in this analysis. its
181 shown in Figure
production 3, low.
is very the result for coal
Conversely, depletion
Poland in Spain
has much is very
higher high of(>500
reserves coal years), because
than Spain, but its
its
182 production is very low. Conversely, Poland has much higher reserves of coal than
production is 75 times higher, which results in less years to fossil fuel depletion in Poland. Spain, but its
183 production is 75 times higher, which results in less years to fossil fuel depletion in Poland.
700 Table 1. Fossil fuel proven reserves [24] in European countries.
600
Oil Reserves Coal Reserves Gas Reserves
Country
500
(Million Barrels) (Million Tonnes) (Billion Cubic Meters)
400
Years

Bulgaria 0 2366 0
300
Czech Republic 0 3676 0
Denmark
200 400 0 14
Germany
100 0 36,212 37
Greece 0 2876 0
0
Hungary 0 2909 0
Italy 500 0 37
Netherlands 0 0 700
Norway 7600 0 1800
Oil depletion Coal depletion Gas depletion
184 Poland 0 24,161 100
Romania 600 291 100
185 Spain
Figure 3. Fossil fuel depletion.
0 1187 0
United Kingdom 2500 70 200
186
178 The European countries do not possess many fossil fuel resources, as can be verified in Table 1.
179 Figure 3 presents oil, coal, and gas depletion for the world and some European countries (data from
180 [24]). Eurasian countries, such as the Russian Federation, were not considered in this analysis. As
181 shown in Figure 3, the result for coal depletion in Spain is very high (>500 years), because its
182 production is 964
Energies 2019, 12, very low. Conversely, Poland has much higher reserves of coal than Spain, but
6 ofits
11
183 production is 75 times higher, which results in less years to fossil fuel depletion in Poland.
700

600

500

400
Years

300

200

100

Oil depletion Coal depletion Gas depletion

184
Figure 3. Fossil fuel depletion.
185 Figure 3. Fossil fuel depletion.
3.4. Fossil Fuel Energy Consumption and Other Variables
186
Another stage of this work was to analyze the relationship of fossil fuel energy consumption
(FFEC) and fossil fuel reserves (FFR) with other variables such as energy dependence (ED, calculated
as the percentage of imports in total energy consumption) and share of renewable energy (SRE) in
gross final energy consumption (data from [23]). Norway was excluded from this analysis because the
value for energy dependence was very different from all the other countries’ values, and that could
have significantly affected the results.
Table 2 presents the results of a correlation analysis made by two methods, one that uses the
Pearson correlation and the other that uses Spearman’s correlation. A significant negative correlation
was found for energy dependence and share of renewable energy and fossil fuel energy consumption
and share of renewable energy by both methods (p < 0.05). Since fossil fuel energy consumption
and share of renewable energy are negatively correlated, this means that the higher the share of
renewable energy the lower the fossil fuel energy consumption. The same can be said of the correlation
concerning energy dependence and share of renewable energy. Fossil fuel reserves presented a
significant positive correlation with fossil fuel energy consumption in the Spearman’s correlation,
which has some justification, because the ownership of fossil fuel reserves may induce some fossil fuel
consumption since it is a resource that the country possesses. Table 3 presents the confidence intervals
(for 95%) for these two significant Pearson correlations.
GIC (gross final energy consumption per capita in GJ) presented a significant negative correlation
with fossil fuel energy consumption and a positive one with share of renewable energy when the
Pearson correlation was used (Table 2). This should be carefully followed, because it means that the
higher the share of renewable energy the higher the GIC per capita. By applying the Shapiro–Wilk
test for assessing normality, it was possible to conclude that all hypotheses of normal distribution
were rejected except for energy dependency, so the Spearman’s correlations were more reliable. When
Norway was included, all hypotheses of normal distribution were rejected.
Most countries presented a high fossil fuel energy consumption and a low share of renewable
energy. The exceptions were Iceland and Sweden, which presented a low fossil fuel energy
consumption and a high share of renewable energy, and Norway, which presented high percentages
for both variables. In Iceland, electricity came from hydro (73%) and geothermal (27%) sources in
2016, and the majority of houses were heated using geothermal energy. Iceland still presented a high
dependence on fossil fuels when considering transportation and fishing [28,29]. In 2016 in Sweden,
almost 98% of electricity came from nuclear and renewable (40% from hydroelectric power), and its
share of renewable energy was the highest in the European Union [23,30]. In Norway, for the same
year, electricity was mainly generated by hydro resources (97%). However, Norway is a supplier of
oil and gas, since it has significant hydrocarbon resources [31]. Due to this, Norway was excluded
from the correlation analysis since the value for energy dependence is very different from the other
countries’ values.
Energies 2019, 12, 964 7 of 11

Table 2. Correlation between variables.

ED FFEC SRE FFR GIC ED FFEC SRE FFR GIC

ED Pearson 1 0.353 −472 * −0.037 −0.210 Spearman’s 1.000 0.279 −0.407 * −0.192 −0.181
Sig. (2-tailed) - 0.065 0.011 0.851 0.283 Sig. (2-tailed) - 0.151 0.032 0.327 0.356
N 28 28 28 28 28 N 28 28 28 28 28
FFEC Pearson 0.353 1 −820 ** 0.250 −0.592 ** Spearman’s 0.279 1.000 −0.663 ** 0.381 * −0.141
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.065 - 0.000 0.200 0.001 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.151 - 0.000 0.046 0.474
N 28 28 28 28 28 N 28 28 28 28 28
SRE Pearson −0.472 * −0.820 ** 1 −0.204 0.583 ** Spearman’s −0.407 * −0.663 ** 1.000 −0.353 −0.059
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.011 0.000 - 0.299 0.001 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.032 0.000 0.066 0.766
N 28 28 28 28 28 N 28 28 28 28 28
FFR Pearson −0.037 0.250 −0.204 1 −0.078 Spearman’s −0.192 0.381 * −0.353 1.000 −0.239
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.851 0.200 0.299 0.694 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.327 0.046 0.066 - 0.221
N 28 28 28 28 28 N 28 28 28 28 28
GIC Pearson −0.210 −0.592 ** 0.583 ** −0.078 1 Spearman’s −0.181 −0.141 −0.059 −0.239 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.283 0.001 0.001 0.694 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.356 0.474 0.766 0.221
N 28 28 28 28 28 N 28 28 28 28 28
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Sig.–Significance N- number of countries
Energies 2019, 12, 964 8 of 11

Table 3. Confidence intervals for correlation.

r n Lower Bound Upper Bound

−0.472 28 −0.7185 −0.1201
−0.820 28 −0.9136 −0.6439

The significant negative correlations observed between fossil fuel energy consumption and share
of renewable energy and energy dependence and share of renewable energy show that most European
countries have a long pathway ahead in order to achieve low carbon energy systems. It is definitely
necessary to increase the share of renewable energy and continue with the incentives for renewable
energy. The exceptions to this trend described above show that it is necessary that each country
should choose its energy mix according to its own local characteristics, making the most of its natural
renewable resources.
Nuclear energy is low carbon energy; however, it presents several disadvantages, such as
the consequences of nuclear accidents or the management of nuclear wastes, which impact on the
environment. These aspects can mask the positive characteristics of this kind of energy and can be an
obstacle to its implementation or continuity, especially when comparing it with renewable energy.

3.5. Analysis of Gross Inland Consumption per Capita Using Kruskal–Wallis Test
In the Kruskal–Wallis test, four independent variables were considered, namely energy
dependence, fossil fuel energy consumption, share of renewable energy, and fossil fuel reserves,
and the GIC per capita was the dependent variable. The results for the Kruskal–Wallis test are
presented in Table 4. Analyzing the results, it is possible to conclude that significant differences
(p < 0.05) were found for share of renewable energy. For all other variables, statistical differences were
not found. Norway was not considered in the first test because its value for energy dependence is
completely different from the values of the other countries, and it could have significantly affected
the results.

Table 4. Kruskal–Wallis results.

GIC Per Capita (GJ)

Groups
Number Mean SD Kruskal–Wallis Test
>75; 5 169.3774 88.16911
50–75; 8 123.8830 27.28434
ED (%) 0.781
25–50; 11 149.388 55.27619
<25 4 274.536 291.03302
>75; 12 150.1715 60.56168
50–75; 13 128.6138 47.26717
FFEC (TJ) 0.070
25–50; 3 209.8192 54.04421
<25 1 703.8394
50–75; 3 380.3492 280.30720
SRE (%) 25–50; 9 132.9515 63.98637 0.030
<25 17 145.2778 52.64289
>10 million; 11 133.5069 47.66839
FFR (TJ) 1–10 million; 2 117.3098 14.85270 0.434
<1 million 16 194.0098 149.6713

The results of this statistical test seem to corroborate the link between GIC per capita and share of
renewable energy. When the share of renewable energy is higher, between 50% and 75%, the average
GIC is much higher than in the other groups. Looking closer at the data, it is possible to conclude that
this result was obtained due to Iceland. If Iceland is excluded, no significant differences are found—its
GIC is more than two times the next higher value.
Energies 2019, 12, 964 9 of 11

3.6. Fossil Fuel Energy Usage Projection to 2050

According to the scenarios developed by the World Energy Council [20], the primary energy
supply in 2050 will be 879 EJ/y in the Jazz scenario and 696 EJ/y in the Symphony scenario, where
the share of fossil fuels in the energy mix will be 79% and 59%, respectively. Jazz gives priority to
achieving individual access and affordability of energy through economic growth, and Symphony
gives priority on achieving environmental sustainability through internationally coordinated policies
and practices [20]. In the Jazz scenario, the share of fossil fuels is similar to the present share of fossil
fuels [22]. In this work, the impact on the proven reserves of fossil fuels was estimated by calculating an
annual average increase in energy which will be reflected in an equal increase of the energy production
rate in the different fossil fuels (since the energy mix is similar). The average annual increase in the Jazz
scenario was 1.2% and that increase was considered in the production of energy from oil, coal, and gas
taking into consideration the energy content of each fossil fuel [24]. For solid fuels an average value
was considered between hard coal and lignite and sub-bituminous coal. It was possible to conclude
that by 2050 it will only remain approximately 14% of oil proven reserves, 72% of coal proven reserves
and 18% of gas proven reserves. Given the small reserves of European countries, it means that if they
need to use their fossil fuel reserves, they will rapidly disappear. However, technological advances
in several areas can help to find new reserves/resources and also help to increase the efficiency in
energy use. Biofuels are also being studied to find substitutes for some products produced from fossil
fuels [32,33]. In addition, the increase in primary energy in Europe will be lower than in other regions
of the world. Some studies are also evaluating the role of renewable energy and the possibility of
having a European energy system based on 100% renewable sources [34–37].

4. Conclusions
One of the conclusions of this work is that many European countries are still heavily dependent
on fossil fuels. The values for the fossil fuel energy consumption indicator is higher than 60% for most
countries, which corresponds to 24 countries out of the 29 European countries analyzed in this study.
Additionally, 10 countries present values higher than 80%, which includes countries, such as Germany
and the United Kingdom, that are considered leaders in the shift to renewable energy. This means
that, in spite of the efforts and changes in energy policies made by European countries, there is still a
long way ahead to achieve low carbon energy systems. Moreover, fossil fuels do not exist in quantity
in most of the European countries. Solid fuels present the highest availability, but, as is known, they
present more severe environmental impacts. However, probably due to European legislation, the fossil
fuel energy mix of the European countries studied does not depend heavily on solid fuels, which is a
positive aspect from an environmental and social perspective. The positive factor is that the renewable
energy and fossil fuel energy consumption indicators are negatively correlated, the higher the first
the lower the other. This work also revealed that a correlation between gross inland consumption
(GIC) per capita and share of renewable energy should be carefully followed and further studied in the
future, since it seems that they could be positively correlated. The indicators that were calculated and
the mathematical and statistical analysis performed all clarified and highlighted the present trends.
It was possible to estimate that by 2050 (considering Jazz scenario) it will only remain approximately
14% of oil proven reserves, 72% of coal proven reserves and 18% of gas proven reserves. If European
countries need to use their limited fossil fuel reserves, they will fast disappear. This work provided
relevant information for the decision-making process and to increase awareness in a comprehensive
way. Renewable energy is a key issue to decrease fossil fuel usage and to the shift to low carbon
energy systems.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization and methodology, F.M.; writing—original draft preparation, F.M., C.F.,
and M.S.; writing—review and editing, N.C.
Funding: This work was financially supported by project UID/EQU/00511/2019—Laboratory for Process
Engineering, Environment, Biotechnology and Energy (LEPABE) funded by national funds through FCT/MCTES
(PIDDAC), by project UID/EQU/00305/2013—Center for Innovation in Engineering and Industrial Technology
Energies 2019, 12, 964 10 of 11

(CIETI), and by European Union (FEDER funds through COMPETE) and National Funds (FCT) through project
UID/QUI/50006/2013.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References and Note

1. Sugiawan, Y.; Managi, S. New evidence of energy-growth nexus from inclusive wealth. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2019, 103, 40–48. [CrossRef]
2. Caetano, N.S.; Mata, T.M.; Martins, A.A.; Felgueiras, M.C. New Trends in Energy Production and Utilization.
Energy Procedia 2017, 107, 7–14. [CrossRef]
3. Savvidis, G.; Siala, K.; Weissbart, C.; Schmidt, L.; Borggrefe, F.; Kumar, S.; Pittel, K.; Madlener, R.;
Hufendiek, K. The gap between energy policy challenges and model capabilities. Energy Policy 2019,
125, 503–520. [CrossRef]
4. Pillot, B.; Muselli, M.; Poggi, P.; Dias, J.B. Historical trends in global energy policy and renewable power
system issues in Sub-Saharan Africa: The case of solar PV. Energy Policy 2019, 127, 113–124. [CrossRef]
5. Khan, M.M.; Zaman, K.; Irfan, D.; Awan, U.; Ali, G.; Kyophilavong, P.; Shahbaz, M.; Naseem, I. Triangular
relationship among energy consumption, air pollution and water resources in Pakistan. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,
112, 1375–1385. [CrossRef]
6. Zheng, S.; Yi, H.; Li, H. The impacts of provincial energy and environmental policies on air pollution control
in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 49, 386–394. [CrossRef]
7. Lott, M.C.; Pye, S.; Dodds, P.E. Quantifying the co-impacts of energy sector decarbonisation on outdoor air
pollution in the United Kingdom. Energy Policy 2017, 101, 42–51. [CrossRef]
8. Li, S.; Feng, K.; Li, M. Identifying the main contributors of air pollution in Beijing. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 163,
S359–S365. [CrossRef]
9. Zhang, Y.; Qu, S.; Zhao, J.; Zhu, G.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, X.; Sabel, C.E.; Wang, H. Quantifying regional
consumption-based health impacts attributable to ambient air pollution in China. Environ. Int. 2018,
112, 100–106.
10. Narula, K. Global Energy System and Sustainable Energy Security. In The Maritime Dimension of Sustainable
Energy Security; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 23–49.
11. Saffari, M.; de Gracia, A.; Fernández, C.; Belusko, M.; Boer, D.; Cabeza, L.F. Optimized demand side
management (DSM) of peak electricity demand by coupling low temperature thermal energy storage (TES)
and solar PV. Appl. Energy 2018, 211, 604–616. [CrossRef]
12. Hossain, M.S.; Madlool, N.A.; Rahim, N.A.; Selvaraj, J.; Pandey, A.K.; Khan, A.F. Role of smart grid in
renewable energy: An overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 60, 1168–1184. [CrossRef]
13. Urpelainen, J. RISE to the occasion? A critique of the World Bank’s Regulatory Indicators for Sustainable
Energy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 39, 69–73. [CrossRef]
14. Sheinbaum-Pardo, C.; Ruiz-Mendoza, B.J.; Rodríguez-Padilla, V. Mexican energy policy and sustainability
indicators. Energy Policy 2012, 46, 278–283. [CrossRef]
15. Coady, D.; Parry, I.; Sears, L.; Shang, B. How large are global fossil fuel subsidies? World Dev. 2017, 91, 11–27.
[CrossRef]
16. Lia, J.; Sunb, C. Towards a low carbon economy by removing fossil fuel subsidies? China Econ. Rev. 2018, 50,
17–33. [CrossRef]
17. Mohr, S.H.; Wang, J.; Ellem, G.; Ward, J.; Giurco, D. Projection of world fossil fuels by country. Fuel 2015, 141,
120–135. [CrossRef]
18. Bauer, N.; Hilaire, J.; Brecha, R.J.; Edmonds, J.; Jiang, K.; Kriegler, E.; Rogner, H.-H.; Sferra, F. Assessing
global fossil fuel availability in a scenario framework. Energy 2016, 111, 580–592. [CrossRef]
19. EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2018 with Projections to 2050; EIA: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
20. World Energy Council. World Energy Scenarios—Composing Energy Futures to 2050; World Energy Council:
London, UK, 2013.
21. Martins, F.; Felgueiras, C.; Smitková, M. Fossil fuel energy consumption in European countries.
Energy Procedia 2018, 153, 107–111. [CrossRef]
22. IEA. Key World energy Statistics 2017; IEA: Paris, France, 2017.
23. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat (accessed on 19 March 2018).
Energies 2019, 12, 964 11 of 11

24. BP. Statistical Review of World Energy; BP: London, UK, 2017.
25. Dalgaard, P. Regression and Correlation. In Introductory Statistics with R; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008;
pp. 109–125.
26. Dalgaard, P. Analysis of Variance and the Kruskal—Wallis Test. In Introductory Statistics with R; Springer:
New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 127–143.
27. European Parliament and Council, Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
23 April 2009.
28. ORKUSTOFNUN. National Energy Authority, Meet Iceland—A pioneer in the Use of Renewable Resources;
ORKUSTOFNUN: Reykjavik, Iceland, 2009.
29. ORKUSTOFNUN. National Energy Authority, Energy Statistics in Iceland 2016; ORKUSTOFNUN: Reykjavik,
Iceland, 2017.
30. IEA. Sweden—Energy System Overview; IEA: Paris, France, 2017.
31. IEA. Norway—Energy System Overview; IEA: Paris, France, 2017.
32. Varanda, M.; Pinto, G.; Martins, F. Life Cycle Analysis of Biodiesel Production. Fuel Process. Technol. 2011, 92,
1087–1094. [CrossRef]
33. Brito, M.; Martins, F. Life cycle assessment of butanol production. Fuel 2017, 208, 476–482. [CrossRef]
34. Blazquez, J.; Nezamuddin, N.; Zamrik, T. Economic policy instruments and market uncertainty: Exploring
the impact on renewables adoption. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 94, 224–233. [CrossRef]
35. Zappa, W.; Junginger, M.; van den Broek, M. Is a 100% renewable European power system feasible by 2050?
Appl. Energy 2019, 233–234, 1027–1050. [CrossRef]
36. Scarlat, N.; Dallemand, J.-F.; Monforti-Ferrario, F.; Banja, M.; Motola, V. Renewable energy policy framework
and bioenergy contribution in the European Union—An overview from National Renewable Energy Action
Plans and Progress Reports. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 51, 969–985. [CrossRef]
37. Martins, F. PV sector in the European Union countries—Clusters and efficiency. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2017, 74, 173–177. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).