Energie 3

7/27/2019 Energie 3

1/50

Alternative energy scenarios for CO2 emissionsimulation

BySascha Samadi

On behalf ofDr. Manfred FischedickDirector of research groupFuture Energy and Mobility

Structures

Presentation atWorkshop on EnergyScenariosOrganised by clisap

11/09/2008

7/27/2019 Energie 3

2/50

11/09/2008 Alternative energy scenarios for CO2 emission simulation 1

Overview

Energy scenarios definition and classification

Introduction to various global energy scenarios released in

recent years Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (IPCC)

World Energy Outlook 2007 (IEA)

Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 (IEA)

energy [r]evolution (Greenpeace/DLR)

World Energy Technology Outlook 2050 (European Commission)

How to Combat Global Warming (Bellona)

Main scenario results Primary energy supply

CO2 emissions of energy sector

7/27/2019 Energie 3

3/50


Overview

Main elements of mitigation strategies of alternative scenariosand their effects on CO2 emissions

Reduction of final energy consumption Reduction of CO2 emissions per unit of final energy consumption

A closer look at energy models different types and weaknesses

7/27/2019 Energie 3

4/50


Energy scenarios definition and classification

Energy scenarios are

alternative images of how the future might unfold and are anappropriate tool with which to analyze how driving forces may

influence future emission outcomes and to assess the associateduncertainties. (IPCC SRES)

Scenarios are different from forecasts

In general two types of energy scenarios are distinguished:

Reference (or baseline) scenarios

Alternative (or intervention or mitigation) scenarios

7/27/2019 Energie 3

5/50


Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (IPCC)Introduction

Nakicenovic, N. et al (2000): Special Report on Emissions Scenarios,Working Group III, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), Cambridge

Prepared to develop emission scenarios for IPCC Third AssessmentReport (TAR)

SRES emission scenarios also used in Fourth Assessment Report(AR4) and in many other publications

Four different narrative storylines (A1, A2, B1, B2) were developed todescribe consistently the relationships between emission driving

forces until 2100

7/27/2019 Energie 3

6/50


Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (IPCC)Scenario storyline overview

7/27/2019 Energie 3

7/50


Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (IPCC)Scenarios of different storylines

For each storyline several different scenarios were developed usingdifferent modelling approaches

All SRES scenarios are non-intervention scenarios, i.e. they do notinclude (additional) climate initiatives

The resultant 40 SRES scenarios together encompass the range ofuncertainties of future GHG emissions

The range of annual global CO2 emissions over the 21st century ofthe 40 SRES scenarios is substantial

7/27/2019 Energie 3

8/50


Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (IPCC)CO2 emissions of illustrative scenarios (in Gt C/a)

7/27/2019 Energie 3

9/50


World Energy Outlook 2007 (IEA)Introduction

IEA - International Energy Agency (2007): World Energy Outlook2007, OECD and International Energy Agency report, Paris

Intends to describe key trends of global energy market and help IEAmember countries identify and prepare for future supply constraints

A main focus of WEO 2007 was improving accuracy of energy dataused, especially regarding China and India

WEO 2007 consists of four scenarios, each extending to 2030

7/27/2019 Energie 3

10/50


World Energy Outlook 2007 (IEA)Reference scenarios

Reference Scenario

No new energy-policy interventions by governments

Used as Reference to test alternative assumptions about future policies Global CO2 emissions in 2030 are 57% above 2005 emissions

No Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) employed

High Growth Scenario

Derived from Reference Scenario, assuming higher economic growth inIndia and China (1.5 percentage points/a).

Constructed to take into account high uncertainty regarding Indias andChinas future growth path

Global CO2 emissions in 2030 are 68% above 2005 emissions

7/27/2019 Energie 3

11/50


World Energy Outlook 2007 (IEA)Alternative scenarios

Alternative Policy Scenario

Assumes implementation of energy-related policies and measures thatgovernments around the world are currently considering

Intended to provide policy makers with practical guidance concerningpotential impact and costs of the options they are considering

Global CO2 emissions in 2030 are 27% above 2005 emissions

No CCS employed

450 Stabilisation Case

Explores what needs to be done until 2030 to have a chance ofachieving long-term stabilization of GHG at about 450 ppm CO2-eq.

Part of IEAs response to request from G8 leaders at Gleneagles

Summit in 2005

Global CO2 emissions in 2030 are 14% below 2005 emissions

CCS employed in power generation and industry

7/27/2019 Energie 3

12/50


World Energy Outlook 2007 (IEA)Energy model used

IEA uses its World Energy Model (WEM) to generate the projectionsfor all the scenarios in WEO 2007:

WEM is a partial equilibrium bottom-up model with a rich technologyrepresentation of all energy sectors

GDP growth and international energy prices are exogenous

Current WEM is comprised of nearly 16,000 equations, is the 11th version

of the model and covers 21 regions

Oil and other commodity prices are determined by the model

IEA statistical databases are primarily used for model data input,additional data from a wide range of external sources also used

7/27/2019 Energie 3

13/50


Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 (IEA)Introduction and baseline scenario

IEA - International Energy Agency (2008): Energy TechnologyPerspectives 2008, Paris

Part of response of IEA to G8 energy ministers request

Consists of one reference scenario and two main alternativescenarios, all extending to 2050

Baseline scenario

Assumes there are no new energy-policy interventions bygovernments and no major supply constraints

Consistent with WEO 2007 Reference Scenario until 2030; trendsextended until 2050 based on ETP 2008 model analysis

CO2 emissions in 2050 are 130% higher than today

7/27/2019 Energie 3

14/50


Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 (IEA)Alternative scenarios

ACT Mapscenario

Global CO2 emissions peak between 2020 and 2030 and are broughtback to current levels by 2050

Wide ranges of technologies that exist or are in an advanced state ofdevelopment are adopted with marginal costs of about 50 USD/t CO2

BLUE Mapscenario

More speculative than ACT Map scenarios Global CO2 emissions are reduced by 50% from current levels

Requires rapid development and widespread uptake of technologies.

Marginal costs assumed to be at least 200 USD/tCO2 in 2050.

CCS for power generation and industry is most important single newtechnology for CO2 savings, in 2050 it accounts for 19% of total CO2savings compared to baseline scenario

7/27/2019 Energie 3

15/50


Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 (IEA)Variants of alternative scenarios

Five additional variant scenarios are derived from both ACT Map andBLUE Map scenarios; each assumes different technologicaldevelopments in power sector

For instance: A BLUE variant scenario assuming no use of CCSresults in CO2 emissions in 2050 which are 46% higher than in BLUEMap scenario (20.4 compared to 14 Gt CO2)

Four more variant scenarios are derived from (only) the BLUE Mapscenario taking into account uncertainties concerning futuretechnological developments in the transport sector

7/27/2019 Energie 3

16/50


Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 (IEA)Energy model used

IEA primarily uses its Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP) modelto generate the ACT and BLUE scenarios

Belonging to MARKAL family of bottom-up modelling tools Cost-optimisation used

Focuses on technological change

Calibrated primarily with IEA statistics

Supplemented with detailed demand-side models for all major end-uses

7/27/2019 Energie 3

17/50


energy [r]evolution (Greenpeace/DLR)Introduction

Greenpeace and European Renewable Energy Council (2007):energy [r]evolution A Sustainable World Energy Outlook,http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/energy_revolution.pdf

Commissioned by Greenpeace International and the EuropeanRenewable Energy Council (EREC)

Prepared from the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) and projectpartners

Aims to show how deep cuts in energy-related CO2 emissions can be

achieved while at the same time phasing out use of nuclear power Consists of two global energy scenarios until 2050

7/27/2019 Energie 3

18/50


energy [r]evolution (Greenpeace/DLR)Scenarios

Reference Scenario

Based on IEAs World Energy Outlook 2004 Reference Scenario

Extended until 2050

Global CO2 emissions in 2050 are 97% higher than 2003 emissions

energy [r]evolutionscenario

Global CO2 emissions in 2050 are half of 2000 emissions

Nuclear power phased out completely shortly after 2030 Huge energy efficiency improvements

Implementation of various political measures to significantly increaseenergy efficiency and renewable energy diffusion

No use of CCS assumed

7/27/2019 Energie 3

19/50


energy [r]evolution (Greenpeace/DLR)Energy model used

Global energy model MESAP/PlaNet used to develop the twoscenarios:

Bottom-up energy sector model

MESAP determines the least-cost energy supply to meet a given finalenergy demand under constraints like a CO2 emission limit

PlaNet (MESAP module) is used to determine final energy demand in the

energy [r]evolution scenario while assuming that technologically and

economically feasible energy efficiency potentials in end-use sectors areexploited

7/27/2019 Energie 3

20/50


World Energy Technology Outlook 2050 (EC/Enerdata)Introduction

EC - European Commission (2006): World Energy Technology Outlook 2050, http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/weto-h2_en.pdf

Commissioned by European Commission Directorate-General forResearch (DG Research) and prepared by French research instituteEnerdata and consortium partners

Study focuses on possible future developments of European energy

market, taking into account interdependencies with energy marketdevelopments in other regions

Major objective is to identify energy technologies that will be important

in the future in order to help identify research priorities One reference scenario and two alternative scenarios are modelled

until 2050

7/27/2019 Energie 3

21/50


World Energy Technology Outlook 2050 (EC/Enerdata)Scenarios

Reference Case

Continuation of existing economic and technological trends

Only moderate climate policies assumed

CO2 emissions in 2050 are 88% above 2001 emissions

CCS will only have a significant impact after 2040

Carbon Constraint Case

More ambitious climate policies Aims at long-term stabilization of atmospheric CO2 below 550 ppmv


Optimistic assumptions regarding CCS

By 2050 62% of electricity generation from fossil fuels (coal and gas)is in plants equipped with CCS

7/27/2019 Energie 3

22/50


World Energy Technology Outlook 2050 (EC/Enerdata)Scenarios and energy model used

H2Case

Series of technology breakthroughs are assumed (deliberatelyoptimistic) that significantly increase cost-effectiveness of key hydrogen

technologies, especially in end-use sector

Share of hydrogen in energy end-use reaches 5% in Europe in 2050


Rapid progress in CCS, as in Carbon Constraint Case; CCS also used

for hydrogen production

All three scenarios are developed using the POLES energy model:

Energy supply as well as energy demand is modelled

Energy supply modelled by using bottom-up energy sector structure

Energy demand determined using a top-down approach within POLES

Simulation approach to determine how energy demand is met (nooptimization)

7/27/2019 Energie 3

23/50


How to Combat Global Warming (Bellona)Introduction

Environmental Foundation Bellona (2008): How to Combat GlobalWarming,http://www.bellona.org/filearchive/fil_Bellona_CC8_Report_-

_Final_version_-_30_mai.pdf

Aims to show how an 85% reduction in human-induced globalgreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be achieved until 2050

Authors state that cost-optimization is not the main focus of theirGHG mitigation strategy as uncertainties about future costs are large

Study also looks specifically at non-energy GHG and their mitigation

potential One reference scenario and an alternative scenario are modelled

until 2050

7/27/2019 Energie 3

24/50


How to Combat Global Warming (Bellona)Scenarios

Business as usual Scenario

Based on scenarios of IPCC, IEA and World Resource Institute

Energy sector CO2

emissions in 2050 are about 110% above 2005emissions

Bellona Scenario

Authors identify ambitious yet realistic and technically feasible

mitigation measures Final energy demand of business as usual scenario is adjusted forassumed lifestyle changes

Nuclear power is phased out completely by 2050

Energy sector CO2 emissions in 2050 are 85% below 2005 emissions

Heavy use of CCS leads to a carbon negative power generationsector in 2050

7/27/2019 Energie 3

25/50


How to Combat Global Warming (Bellona)(Energy) model used

GHG emissions, not the energy sector, are main focus of model

However, primary energy and electricity supply was also modeled

Bellona uses internally developed model based on spreadsheets tocalculate alternative scenario; GHG emissions are calculated asreductions in GHG emissions compared to business as usual scenario

Reference scenario largely based on WEO 2007 and EnergyTechnology Perspectives 2006

To calculate alternative scenario the model uses different sectors,including non-energy related sectors and six world regions

Bellona Scenario not based on economic modeling but on literaturedescribing mitigation potential

7/27/2019 Energie 3

26/50


Main scenario results

7/27/2019 Energie 3

27/50


Primary energy supply (in EJ/a) and energy sector CO2emissions (in Gt/a) in reference scenarios

27

42

39

36

4244 45

6259

0

100

200300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Actual WEO

2007

WETO e[r] ETP

2008

WETO e[r] ETP

2008

Bellona

2005 2030 2050

Primary

energyinEJ/add

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

CO2

emissionsinG

t/

Coal Oil Gas Nuclear

Hydro Biomass and waste Other renewables CO2 emissions

7/27/2019 Energie 3

28/50


Primary energy supply (in EJ/a) and energy sector CO2emissions (in Gt/a) in alternative scenarios

34

29

12

25

1416

27

30

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Actual WEO2007

WETO e[r] ETP2008

WETO e[r] Bellona

2005 2030 2050

Primar

yenergyinEJ

/a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

CO2

emissionsinG

t/

Coal Oil Gas Nuclear

Hydro Biomass and waste Other renewables CO2 Emissions

7/27/2019 Energie 3

29/50


Main scenario resultsCO2 emissions in reference scenarios (in Gt/a)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

GtCO2/a

Actual ETP 2008 Baseline WEO 2007 Reference

e[r] Reference WETO Reference Bellona Reference

7/27/2019 Energie 3

30/50


Main scenario resultsCO2 emissions in alternative scenarios (in Gt/a)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

G

tCO2/a

Actual ETP 2008 Baseline ETP 2008 Blue Map

WEO 2007 Alternative e[r] Revolution WETO Carbon Constraint

Bellona Alternative

7/27/2019 Energie 3

31/50


CO2 mitigation options in the

energy sector

7/27/2019 Energie 3

32/50


Classification of CO2 mitigation options in the energy sector

Reducing final energy consumption

Improving efficiency of final energy use

Demand reductions for energy services (lifestyle changes)

Reducing CO2 emissions per unit of final energy consumption

Improving efficiency of fossil fuel energy transformation

Replacement of carbon-intensive fuels by cleaner alternatives

Switching from high-carbon to lower-carbon fossil fuels Renewable energy expansion

Nuclear power expansion

Role of CCS technology

7/27/2019 Energie 3

33/50


Improving efficiency of final energy use

All scenarios expect final energy intensity to keep improving in thecoming decades

Final energy intensity =

final energy per unit of gross world product

In the reference scenarios final energy will improve at an average

annual rate of between 1.4% and 1.8%

In all alternative scenarios discussed here this rate is higher than intheir respective reference scenarios.

Considerably higher in the alternative studies of the IEA andGreenpeace/DLR studies (between 2.3% and 2.5%)

Only slightly higher in the alternative scenario of the WETO study (1.7%compared to 1.4% in the WETO reference scenario)

7/27/2019 Energie 3

34/50


Improving efficiency of final energy useFinal energy demand in reference and alternative scenarios

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

actual WEO

2007

e[r] WETO ETP

2008

e[r] WETO

2005 2030 2050

inEJ/a

Reference Alterantive

7/27/2019 Energie 3

35/50


Demand reduction for energy services (lifestyle changes)

Only the Bellona study and (to a small extent) Greenpeace/DLRstudy consider for their alternative scenarios that demand for energyservices is reduced compared to demand in respective reference

scenarios

In the Bellona study about 10% of all GHG emission reductions in2050 (relative to business as usual) are the result of lifestyle changes

The Greenpeace/DLR study mentions the need for changes inlifestyle only in the transport sector

7/27/2019 Energie 3

36/50


Role of nuclear energy

There are considerable differences in the expected role of nuclearenergy in reference scenarios

The WETO study expects nuclear energy to contribute more than four

times the amount of energy in 2050 compared to today

The ETP 2008 and the Bellona study expect an increase of one third oftodays contribution

In the reference scenario of Greenpeace/DLR nuclear energy contribution

will remain the same in 2050 as it is today

The alternative scenarios also differ greatly in regard to the role ofnuclear power.

Expanded significantly in ETP 2008

Further increased from its high reference scenario level in the WETOstudy

Phase-out globally until about 2030 (Greenpeace) and until 2050

(Bellona) in alternative scenarios of these groups studies

7/27/2019 Energie 3

37/50


Role of renewable energy

Compared to nuclear power, there appears to be more of anagreement regarding the future expansion of renewable energies in abusiness-as-usual scenario. Renewable energy contribution about

doubles in all the reference scenarios considered here

Expanded use of renewable energies is a key contribution to CO2mitigation in all alternative scenarios reviewed. In 2050 in mostalternative scenarios primary energy supply from these sources willbe 150% to 250% above 2005 levels

Bellonas alternative scenario is a notable exception as its primaryenergy supply from renewables in 2050 is more than 450% higher

than it was in 2005

Role of rene able and n clear energ

7/27/2019 Energie 3

38/50


Role of renewable and nuclear energyContribution in reference scenarios (in EJ/a)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Actual

WE

O2007

WETO

e[r]

WE

O2007

WETO

e[r]

ET

P2008

WETO

e[r]

Bellona

2005 2020 2030 2050

inEJ/a

renewables nuclear

Role of renewable and nuclear energy

7/27/2019 Energie 3

39/50


Role of renewable and nuclear energyContribution in alternative scenarios (in EJ/a)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Actual

WEO2007

WETO

e[r]

WEO2007

WETO

e[r]

ETP2008

WETO

e[r]

Bellona

2005 2020 2030 2050

inEJ/a

renewables nuclear

7/27/2019 Energie 3

40/50



As seen, in the alternative scenario of the WETO study the contributionin 2050 of renewable and nuclear energy together is almost twice theamount it is in the Greenpeace/DLR alternative scenario

However, due to the much smaller primary energy demand in theGreenpeace/DLR alternative scenario the primary energy share ofnon-fossil energy in 2050 is higher there than it is in the alternativescenario of the WETO study


7/27/2019 Energie 3

41/50


Role of renewable and nuclear energyShare of primary energy supply in alternative scenarios

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Actual

WEO2007

WETO

e[r]

WEO2007

WETO

e[r]

ET

P2008

WETO

e[r]

Bellona

2005 2020 2030 2050

renewables nuclear

7/27/2019 Energie 3

42/50


Role of CCS technology

Most alternative scenarios regard CCS as important mitigation optionthat will contribute significantly to CO2 emission reductions by 2050

The alternative scenario of WEO 2007 does not assume any use ofCCS as it only runs until 2030 and authors express doubts aboutwhether technical and cost challenges can be overcome before 2030

As Greenpeace is opposed to CCS, its alternative scenario is the only

scenario which assumes that this technology will not be used

~30 %

0 %

~35 %

n.s.

Share of fossil fuel power plantsequipped with CCS (in %)

in 2030 in 2050

236 Gt

0 Gt

140 Gt

n.s.

CO2 sequesteredby2050

(cumulated)

~85 %10 GtETP 2008

~85 %16 GtBellona

0 %0 Gte[r]

62 %7 GtWETO

CO2sequestered in

2050

7/27/2019 Energie 3

43/50


Overview of mitigation strategies in alternative scenarios

A closer look at energy models

7/27/2019 Energie 3

44/50


A closer look at energy modelsBottom-up and top-down energy models

Energy models can broadly be classified into two categories: bottom-up and top-down

Traditional bottom-up (or systems engineering) models are designed toconsider the energy sector in relatively great detail, they do not includea complete characterization of overall economic activity. Many bottom-up models seek to minimize the costs of serving an (often) exogenousenergy demand by choosing which technologies to install

Top-down models are aggregate models of the whole economy

All energy models used in the studies discussed here are (primarily)bottom-up models


7/27/2019 Energie 3

45/50


A closer look at energy modelsWeaknesses and problems of energy models

As bottom-up models only model the energy sector (partial equilibrium)

While it can be said that top-down models consider such

interdependencies (general equilibrium), they do not have arepresentative set of technology options

A solution could be combining bottom-up and top-down models (hybridmodels)

Energy models often seem like black boxes to outsiders


7/27/2019 Energie 3

46/50


A closer look at energy modelsProjecting energy demand

Bottom-up, potential-oriented projections of energy efficiencyimprovements might be too optimistic, as constraints facingdissemination of new technologies are either not considered or are

underestimated. These include: Individual risk-aversion

Consumers rejecting new technology due to secondary characteristics like

looks (e.g. energy-saving light bulbs)

Lack of information on new technologies


7/27/2019 Energie 3

47/50


c ose oo at e e gy ode sProjecting energy demand

On the other hand top-down projections of energy efficiencyimprovements might be too pessimistic as these are based onobservations of past behaviour

New energy policy changes aimed at overcoming existing barriers for thesuccessful dissemination of energy efficient technology are not considered

If consumers would expect energy prices to stay high or increase for a longperiod of time, possible beneficial effects on long-term energy efficiencyimprovements might be expected

Non-price induced changes in attitudes and behaviour also can not bemodelled

It is thus questionable if traditional top-down projections of energy

demand are appropriate in the case of alternative CO2 mitigationscenarios


7/27/2019 Energie 3

48/50


gyProjecting energy supply and modelling energy policy

Projecting technological costs more than four decades into the future ishighly uncertain

It is also unclear what kind of costs should be considered as variousforms of external (non-market) costs arise apart from climate changeimpacts

Specific climate policy measures and instruments needed to achieve

alternative scenarios are either not discussed at all or only brieflymentioned in the studies discussed here

7/27/2019 Energie 3

49/50


Literature

Nakicenovic, N. et al (2000): Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, WorkingGroup III, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge

IEA - International Energy Agency (2007): World Energy Outlook 2007,

OECD and International Energy Agency report, Paris

IEA - International Energy Agency (2008): Energy Technology Perspectives2008, Paris

Greenpeace and European Renewable Energy Council (2007): energy[r]evolution A Sustainable World Energy Outlook, http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/energy_revolution.pdf

EC - European Commission (2006): World Energy Technology Outlook

2050, http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/weto-h2_en.pdf

Environmental Foundation Bellona (2008): How to Combat Global Warming,http://www.bellona.org/filearchive/fil_Bellona_CC8_Report_-_Final_version_-_30_mai.pdf

7/27/2019 Energie 3

50/50

For further information

please visit our website:

www.wupperinst.org

Thank you for your attention!

Documents

Energie 3