View
221
Download
3
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Energy Star® Participants MeetingToronto, May 4, 2006
Ralph TorrieVice President, ICF International
Toronto, May 2006rtorrie@icfi.com
The Eye of the Storm or the Eye of the Needle: The
Challenge of Climate Change
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Year
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Degrees C
Five warmest years of the past century have all occurred in the past decade
First 8 months of 2005
Source: NOAA at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies
Models can also be tested for their ability to realistically simulate past climate behaviour
Source: IPCC 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. p 11.
IPCC projects that the world will become MUCH, IPCC projects that the world will become MUCH, MUCH warmerMUCH warmer
Source: IPCC 2001. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Watson,R.T et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. p 140.
Probabilistic approach suggests sensitivity near 3.2°C
Source: Murphy et al. 2004 Nature 430:768-772 (also Science 305:933)
How long have we got? We have to stabilize emissions of carbon dioxide within a decade, or temperatures will warm by more than one degree. That will be warmer than it has been for half a million years, and many things could become unstoppable. If we are to stop that, we cannot wait for new technologies like capturing emissions from burning coal. We have to act with what we have. This decade, that means focusing on energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy that do not burn carbon. We don't have much time left.
Jim HansenNASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, February 2006
How do we defend ourselves against climate change?....
Everything goes somewhere. Everything is connected.
(You cannot do just one thing.)
Nature is an independent power, and does not
negotiate.
Start by remembering the basic “house rules” for Planet Earth…
Economy
Society
Environment
750650550450 ppmv
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250
Annu
al E
mis
sion
s (G
tC)
Stabilization Targets
Global greenhouse gas emission scenarios corresponding to different stabilization levels
Canadian Domestic Demand for Primary Energy, 1926-2003
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
1926 1931 1936 1941 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001
PE
TA
JOU
LE
S
Coal Petroleum
Natural Gas and NGLs Hydro
Wood Nuclear
Low Emission Futures – Context for a “Made in Canada” Approach
• Ongoing population growth• A large and growing fossil fuel production
sector oriented to export markets• Energy intensive industries (paper, metals,
steel, industrial chemicals) important to Canadian economy, although in relative decline and also climbing value added curve in globalized market
• Fuel and electricity relatively inexpensive
Oil Production (bbl/day)
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
Oil Sands
Heavy
Frontier
Light
Energy Related Carbon Dioxide EmissionsIn Canada, 1926-2050
0
200
400
600
800
1926 1951 1976 2001 2026
ME
GA
TON
NE
S
2050
Long term and deep emission reduction scenarios take us outside the climate change policy box, supports a “fresh look” at strategies and options
Energy-Related GHG Emissions by Fuel in 2003(Total emissions 600 Mt eCO 2)
Oil47%
Gas34%
Coal19%
Energy Related GHG Emissions in Canada,Source Allocation vs. End Use Allocation
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Source Allocation End Use Allocation
End Use Power Plants
Total Oil and Gas Industry End Use w Upstream Allocation
Oil/gas industry allocated to export
Personal Transportation
19%
Residential14%
Oil and Gas Export12%
Energy Intensive Industry and Mining
17%
General Mfg10% Service
14%
Freight Transportation
14%
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Canada
(full cycle emission allocation)
Beyond Kyoto – A Low Emissions Path for Canada
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2004 2012 2030
Me
ga
ton
ne
s e
CO
2
Non Energy RelatedEmissions
Petroleum Industry --Export Share
Petroleum Industry -Domestic Share
Industry (excl petroleum)
Freight Transportation
PassengerTransportation
Commercial
Residential
CANADA
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Megatonnes eCO2
Target Carbon Capture Nuclear Biofuels and alt fuels
Renewable Electricity Energy Intensity Urban Form Cogeneration
Energy Eff and Conservation Residual
Source: R. Torrie, “Low Emission Scenarios in an Expanding, Industrialized, Oil Exporting Economy: The Case of Canada”. http://2050.nies.go.jp/2050sympo/cop11_side/Torrie_COP11.pdf
JAPAN
Source: Dr. Junichi Fujino, “Development of Japan Low Carbon Society Japan Low Carbon Society Scenarios toward 2050 Scenarios toward 2050”. http://2050.nies.go.jp/2050sympo/cop11_side/Fujino_COP11.pdf
GERMANY
Source: Martin Weiss, “Long Term Climate Policy Scenarios for Germany”. http://2050.nies.go.jp/2050sympo/cop11_side/Weiss_COP11.pdf
AUSTRALIA
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2001 2040 BaselineScenario 1
2040 CleanEnergy Scenario
2
2040 Scenario 3 2040 Scenario 4
CO
2 em
issi
on
s (M
t)
Electricity generation All other stationary energy use
Source: Hugh Saddler et al., “A Clean Energy Future for Australia”. http://www.enerstrat.com.au/publications.html
AUSTRALIA -- ELECTRICITY FUEL MIX IN 2001, 2040
BASELINE, & 2040 SCENARIO 2
Electricity demand and fuel mix in 2001, and in the 2040 Baseline and Clean Energy Future Scenarios
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2001 2040 - Baseline Scenario1
2040 - Clean EnergyScenario 2
Te
raw
att
-ho
ur
(TW
h)
Reduced demand due tomedium energy efficiency
Cogeneration
Wind
Hydro
Photovoltaic
Natural gas
Petroleum
Biomass
Brown coal
Black coal
Source: Hugh Saddler et al., “A Clean Energy Future for Australia”. http://www.enerstrat.com.au/publications.html
INDIA
Source: PR. Shukla, “Low Carbon scenarios for India to 2050”.http://2050.nies.go.jp/2050sympo/cop11_side/Shukla_COP11.pdf
A Possible “Made in Canada” Low Emission
FutureFIVE PRIORITIES
• Continued improvements in energy productivity of economy, including Factor Four Efficiency gain
• Cogeneration of electricity• Biofuels• Carbon sequestration• Decarbonize electricity generation
Collateral Benefits• Co-benefits of emission reduction will be
critical to success:– Reduced air pollution and improved public
health– Higher performance buildings– Economic competitiveness in global market– Enhanced urban environments– Employment generation across a broad
spectrum of skills and professions– Technological advancement
Synergies
• Emission reductions are consistent with some exogenous trends in Canadian society – these synergies can be exploited to promote lower emissions (urban redensification, refurbishment of post-War infrastructure, higher value added industrial production)
Implementing Low Emission Futures – The Eye of the
Needle Low emission futures have policy implications well beyond
conventional energy policy. They must be developed in a broader context of sustainable development
Energy price based strategies perhaps necessary but not sufficient Technology deployment fundamentally economic, but constrained
by underdeveloped organizational and financial infrastructure, entrenched advantage of commodity suppliers, and externalization of environmental costs.
Global marketing, rapid deployment will characterize demand side developments.
Local authorities must engage; community transformation Climatic conditions will deteriorate for decades, regardless of
mitigation effort
Canadian Domestic Demand for Primary Energy, 1926-2003 (Actual)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
1926 1931 1936 1941 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001
PE
TA
JOU
LES
Coal Petroleum
Natural Gas and NGLs Hydro
Wood Nuclear
Economic, Energy and Emissions Growth in Canada, 1970-1998
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
19
70
=1
.0 GDP
Energy
Emissions
Energy Growth in Canada, 1970-1998
Oil
Gas
Coal HydroNuclear Wood
Energy Productivity
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500 PJ
Thank you!
Ralph D. Torriertorrie@icfi.com
Recommended