Upload
lamtuong
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Global Energy Assessment: Exploring pathways to a more
sustainable future
Anand Patwardhan
Clean Energy Ministerial
April 2013
www.GlobalEnergyAssessment.org
● Total Effort: 300 Authors; 200 Reviewers
> 6 years >> 6m € and >> 100 p-years
● # of Reviewer comments: >6000
● # of Language Editors:15
● # of Copy Editors:15
● # of Figures: ~ 650
● # of Tables: ~ 380
● # of References: >7000
● # of Pages (Published): ~1864 Pages
● Single volume of 5.5 kg
2
External Funding Partners ● Austrian Development Agency (ADA)
● Climate Works Foundation
● Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH
● First Solar Inc.
● Global Environment Facility (GEF) through UNIDO
● Italian Ministry for the Environment and Territory
● Petrobras
● Research Council of Norway
● Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS)
● Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS) and Swedish Energy Agency
● United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
● United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
● United Nations Foundation (UNF)
● United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
● US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)
● US Department of Energy (DOE) through Global Environment and Technology Foundation
● World Bank/ESMAP
● World Energy Council (WEC)
3
GEA Council • Ged Davis – GEA Co-President • José Goldemberg – GEA Co-President; Professor Emeritus, University of São Paulo • Michael Ahearn, First Solar Inc. • Dan Arvizu, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) • Monique Barbut, Global Environment Facility (GEF) • Corrado Clini, Italian Ministry for the Environment and Territory • Robert Corell, Global Environment and Technology Foundation (GETF) • Fei FENG, Development Research Centre (DRC) of the State Council of China, China • Christoph Frei, World Energy Council (WEC) • Irene Giner-Reichl, Foreign Ministry of Austria • Pavel Kabat, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) • Tomas Kåberger, formerly Swedish Energy Agency • Olav Kjørven, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) • Manfred Konukiewitz, German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) • Celso Fernando Lucchesi, Petrobras • Kirit Parikh, formerly Indian Planning Commission and Integrated Research and Action for Development (IRADe) • Jamal Saghir, World Bank • John Schellnhuber, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research; and International Council for Science (ICSU) • Nikhil Seth, Division for Sustainable Development, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(UNDESA) • Achim Steiner, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) • Björn Stigson, formerly World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) • Claude Turmes, Member of the European Parliament • Robert Watson, Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Tyndall Centre at the University of
East Anglia • Anders Wijkman, formerly Member of the European Parliament • Timothy E. Wirth, United Nations Foundation • Kandeh Yumkella, United Nations Industrial Development Organization • Zhou Dadi, Energy Research Institute, China
4
GEA Executive Committee • Thomas B. Johansson – (Co-Chair) Lund University; Sweden • Anand Patwardhan – (Co-Chair) Shailesh J Mehta School of Management, IIT-Bombay; India • Nebojsa Nakicenovic – (Director) IIASA and Vienna University of Technology; Austria • Luis Gomez-Echeverri – (Associate Director) IIASA; Colombia • Stephen Karekezi – African Energy Policy Research Network; Kenya (Ch2: Energy, Poverty, and Development) • Susan McDade - United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); United States (Ch2: Energy, Poverty, and Development) • He Kebin – Tsinghua University; China (Ch3: Energy and Environment) • Johan Rockström – Stockholm Environment Institute; Sweden (Ch3: Energy and Environment) • Lisa Emberson Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, United Kingdom (Ch3: Energy and Environment) • Kirk Smith – University of California, Berkeley; United States (Ch4: Energy and Health) • Aleh Cherp – Central European University; Belarus (Ch5: Energy and Security) • Kurt Yeager – Electric Power Research Institute; United States (Ch 6: Energy and Economy) • Hans-Holger Rogner – International Atomic Energy Agency; Germany (Ch7: Energy Resources and Potentials) • Rangan Banerjee – ITT Bombay; India (Ch8: Energy End-Use: Industry) • Suzana Kahn Ribeiro – Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; Brazil (Ch9: Energy End-Use: Transport) • Diana Urge-Vorsatz – Central European University; Budapest (Ch10: Energy End-Use: Buildings) • Wim Turkenburg – Utrecht University; Netherlands (Ch11: Renewable Energy) • Li Zheng – Tsinghua University; China (Ch12: Fossil Energy) • Eric Larson – Princeton University and Climate Central; United States (Ch12: Fossil Energy) • Sally Benson – Stanford University; United States (Ch13: Carbon Capture and Storage) • Frank von Hippel – Princeton University; United States (Ch14: Nuclear Energy) • Robert Schock – World Energy Council and Center for Global Security Research; United States (Ch15: Energy Supply Systems) • Ralph Sims – Massey University; New Zealand (Ch15: Energy Supply Systems) • Anand Patwardhan – Shailesh J Mehta School of Management, IIT-Bombay; India (Ch16: Transitions in Energy Systems) • Keywan Riahi – IIASA; Austria (Ch17: Energy Pathways for Sustainable Development) • Arnulf Grubler – IIASA and Yale Univ.; Austria (Ch18: Urbanization Energy Systems; and Ch24: Policies for Technology Innovation) • Abeeku Brew-Hammond – Kwame Nkrumah Univ. of Science & Tech.; Ghana (Ch19: Energy Access for Development) • Shonali Pachauri – IIASA; India (Ch19: Energy Access for Development) • Suani T. Coelho – CENBIO-Brazilian Reference Center on Biomass; Brazil (Ch20: Land and Water: Linkages to Bioenergy) • Joyashree Roy – Jadavpur University; India (Ch21: Lifestyles, Well Being and Energy) • Mark Jaccard – Simon Fraser Univ.; Canada (Ch22: Policies for Energy System Transformations: Objectives and Instruments) • Daniel Bouille – Bariloche Foundation; Argentina (Ch23: Policies for Energy Access) • Lynn Mytelka – UNU-MERIT; Canada (Ch25: Policies for Capacity Development)
5
Key ideas • The development of pathways that simultaneously address
multiple energy challenges – Energy access, energy security, climate protection and reducing
environmental impacts and ancillary risks
• There are many such viable pathways with different combinations of energy supply and demand options – Rapidly increase in renewable energy technologies and in energy
efficiency are common elements in all pathways
• Early action is important for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies – Avoiding the risk of lock-in, supporting learning to drive costs down
and redirecting RD&D to widen the menu of technology options
• Policy integration enables multiple entry points for change – Connecting energy and non-energy policies
6
Unre
str
icte
d P
ort
folio
No
Nucl
ear
No
Bio
CC
SN
o S
inks
Lim
ited B
io-e
ner
gy
Lim
ited R
enew
able
sN
o C
CS
No
Nucl
ear &
CC
SLim
. Bio
-energ
y &
Renew
ab
les
No
Bio
CC
S, S
ink &
lim
Bio
-energ
y
Unre
str
icte
d P
ort
folio
No
Nucl
ear
No
Bio
CC
SN
o S
inks
Lim
ited B
io-e
ner
gy
Lim
ited R
enew
able
sN
o C
CS
No
Nucl
ear &
CC
SLim
. Bio
-energ
y &
Renew
ab
les
No
Bio
CC
S, S
ink &
lim
Bio
-energ
y
Advanced
transportation
Conventional
transportation
1850 1900 1950 2000 2050
EJ
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200Geothermal
Solar
Wind
Hydro
Nuclear
Gas wCCS
Gas woCCS
Oil
Coal wCCS
Coal woCCS
Biomass wCCS
Biomass woCCS
1850 1900 1950 2000 2050
EJ
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200Geothermal
Solar
Wind
Hydro
Nuclear
Gas wCCS
Gas woCCS
Oil
Coal wCCS
Coal woCCS
Biomass wCCS
Biomass woCCS
1850 1900 1950 2000 2050
EJ
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200Geothermal
Solar
Wind
Hydro
Nuclear
Gas wCCS
Gas woCCS
Oil
Coal wCCS
Coal woCCS
Biomass wCCS
Biomass woCCS
Microchip
Commercial
aviation
TelevisionVacuum
tubeGasoline
engineElectric
motorSteam
engine
Nuclear
energy
Microchip
Commercial
aviation
TelevisionVacuum
tubeGasoline
engineElectric
motorSteam
engine
Nuclear
energy
Microchip
Commercial
aviation
TelevisionVacuum
tubeGasoline
engineElectric
motorSteam
engine
Nuclear
energy
GEA – Efficiency
GEA – Mix
GEA – Supply
X X X XX X X
X
X X X X
X
X
X X
X X X
• 60+ pathways grouped into 3 broad clusters – efficiency focus, large heterogeneity, high demand; sensitivity analyses to evaluate different situations
• Common elements – ↑ Energy efficiency
– ↑ Renewable energy
– Modernization of fossil fuel system
– Efficiency focus creates supply-side flexibility
7
GEA-Mix
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
EJ
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
GEA-Supply
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
EJ
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2500
GEA-Efficiency
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
EJ
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Efficiency standards and regulations:Buildings:
•factor 4 improvement by 2050 (global retrofit rate of 3%/year)
Transport:
•aggressive efficiency standards (freight & passenger transport)
•electric vehicles
•switch to public transport & reduce demand for mobility
Industry:
•rapid adoption of best available technology
•retrofit of existing plants
•enhanced recycling
•lifecycle product design, etc..
Nuclear phase-out
Fossil CCS
(bridging technology)
Bio-CCS for liquid fuels & negative emissions (long-term)
Transition to renewables on global scale
(90% share by 2100)
Oil phase-out
Intermediate efficiency focus
Regionally diverse supply systems:
2/3 in Asia
2/3 in Asia, Middle East and Africa
about half in OECD
Coal-CCS
(predominantly Asia)
Oil phase-out
(globally)
Bio-CCS for liquid fuels & negative emissions (long-term)
(all regions)
Modest efficiency focus
Rapid up-scaling of all supply-options including
renewables, nuclear and CCS
Large contribution in the GEA-supply central case
(however, transition also feasible without nuclear)
Oil phase-out
CCS mandatory
at high demand
Bio-CCS for liquid fuels & negative emissions (long-term)
Savings
Geothermal
Solar
Wind
Hydro
Nuclear
Gas wCCS
Gas woCCS
Oil
Coal wCCS
Coal woCCS
Biomass wCCS
Biomass woCCS
Savings
Geothermal
Solar
Wind
Hydro
Nuclear
Gas wCCS
Gas woCCS
Oil
Coal wCCS
Coal woCCS
Biomass wCCS
Biomass woCCS
Savings
Geothermal
Solar
Wind
Hydro
Nuclear
Gas wCCS
Gas woCCS
Oil
Coal wCCS
Coal woCCS
Biomass wCCS
Biomass woCCS
8
1850 1900 1950 2000 2050
EJ
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200 Savings
Other renewables
Nuclear
Gas
Oil
Coal
Biomass
Biomass
Coal
Renewables
Nuclear
Oil
Gas
Global Primary Energy no CCS, no Nuclear
Energy savings (efficiency, conservation,
and behavior)
~40% improvement by 2030
~35% renewables by 2030
Oil phase-out (necessary)
Nuclear phase-out (choice)
Source: Riahi et al, 2012 9
1850 1900 1950 2000 2050
EJ
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200 Savings
Other renewables
Nuclear
Gas
Oil
Coal
Biomass
Biomass
Coal
Renewables
Nuclear
Oil
Gas
Global Primary Energy lim. Bioenergy, lim. Intermittent REN
Energy savings (efficiency, conservation,
and behavior)
~40% improvement by 2030
~35% renewables by 2030
Oil phase-out (necessary)
Limited Intermittent REN
Limited Bioenergy
Bio-CCS – “negative CO2”
Nat-gas-CCS
Coal-CCS
Source: Riahi et al, 2011 10
Early action to avoid lock-in: The lock-in risk for Western Europe
Thermal Comfort Final Energy, suboptimal scenario
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
20
05
20
10
20
15
20
20
20
25
20
30
20
35
20
40
20
45
20
50
Energy, PWh/year
Adv New
New
Adv Ret
Retrofit
Standard
26.1%
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
20
05
20
10
20
15
20
20
20
25
20
30
20
35
20
40
20
45
20
50
Energy, PWh/year
Adv New
New
Adv Ret
Retrofit
Standard
68.7%
Thermal Comfort Final Energy, state-of-the-art scenario
Source: GEA Ch10 11
Supply Technologies Cost Trends
Source: GEA, Chapter 24, 2012 and Grubler and Wilson 2012, in press 12
IEA Countries Public Energy R&D
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Mil
lio
n U
S$2008 P
PP
Other
Efficiency
Renewables
Fossil Fuels
Fusion
Nuclear w/o fusion
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
MIN Mean Max 1974-2008 2008
Nuclear
Renewables
Fossil Fuels
Other
EnergyEfficiency
Min Mean Max
In future mitigation scenarios
(technology needs portfolio)
1974-2008 2008
public energy R&D
(past, current R&D portfolio)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
MIN Mean Max 1974-2008 2008
Nuclear
Renewables
Fossil Fuels
Other
EnergyEfficiency
Min Mean Max
In future mitigation scenarios
(technology needs portfolio)
1974-2008 2008
public energy R&D
(past, current R&D portfolio)
future technology needs
share in 2000-2100 cum.
emission reduction
past and current R&D
into developing
improved technologies,
shares by technology
Public Sector Energy RD&D in IEA
Member countries by major technology
group
Distribution of past and current energy
R&D as compared to future technology
needs from the pathways analysis
New Directions for R&D
Source: Grubler et al, 2012 13
Policy Integration at the Urban Scale
Simulated energy use for an urban settlement of 20,000 inhabitants
using the SimCity Model combining spatially explicit models of
urban form, density, and energy infrastructures, with energy
systems optimization.
Source: Grubler et al, 2012 14
Concluding thoughts • Heterogeneity in circumstances, contexts and priorities will require
variety in policy “packages”. Recognition of multiple benefits allows different entry points for change
• Technology is important, but equally important to address critical issues related to implementation: institutions, consumer preferences & market behavior, skills & capacities
• Early action is essential to avoid negative lock-in, create positive lock in and accelerate the technology cycle
• Energy policies need to be coordinated with policies in sectors such as industry, buildings, urbanization, transport, health environment etc. to have real impact
• Next steps: – While the GEA is complete, and the assessment report has its own value, there is a
need for ongoing scientific and technical input into the policy process at different levels
– Could leverage capabilities of institutions such as IIASA to serve as anchors around which the broader scientific community is mobilized to address policy questions
15