Energy and sustainable development

Climate Stabilisation and RES Perspectives in Energy Scenarios

Francesco Gracceva

OVERVIEW

1. Energy scenarios

2. Climate “stabilization”

3. A comparison of scenarios

4. RES perspectives in EU

ENERGY SCENARIOS

ENERGY SCENARIOS (1): DEFINITIONS

IIASA/WEC: (Global Energy Perspectives): “A scenario is an internally consistent and reproducible narrative, describing one possible way the future might unfold”. “Scenarios are neither predictions nor forecasts. Each scenario can be interpreted as one particular image of how the future could unfold. Scenarios are useful tools for investigating alternative future developments and their implications, for learning about the behaviour of complex systems, and for policy-making.”

EC: (Shared analysis project): “The design of scenarios, i.e. the configuration of the development of important drivers in consistent way, […] can be considered a form of art.”

Scenarios are images of alternative futures

ECONOMYDEMOGRAFY TECNOLOGY

DEMAND OF USEFUL ENERGY

FUEL MIX

PRIMARYENERGY DEMAND

EMISSIONSCO2

CONCENTRATIONGLOBAL WARMING

RESOURCES

choice of energy sourcesand technologies

transformation

climate sensitivity

INPUT

OUTPUT

Energy systems are complex: uncertain, not well understood, incomplete information Scenarios usually based on an internally consistent, reproducible set of assumptions or theories about the key relationships and driving forces, often through formal models

ENERGY SCENARIOS (2) :HOW THEY ARE PRODUCED

Time horizon: SHORT/MEDIUM RUN: the energy system is

constrained the cost of “capital stock turnover” before the end of the life cycle of a technology is high

LONG-RUN: large difference between scenarios and forecasts

ENERGY SCENARIOS (3): USE

Usefulness of scenarios: A set of scenarios is a useful tool for investigating

the set of possible futures Long-term energy scenarios can give insights about

tipically long-term issues, like global climate stabilisation. Close link between global climate and “clean” energy technologies (like renewables) useful a comparison of a set of scenarios Useful information for the policymakers: long-term consequences of different policy measures

CLIMATE “STABILIZATION”

CLIMATE “STABILIZATION”. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (1): ENERGY CONSUMPTION DURING THE XX CENTURY

CLIMATE “STABILIZATION”. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (2): ENERGY CONSUMPTION DURING THE XX CENTURY

CLIMATE “STABILIZATION”. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (3): CO2 EMISSIONS AND CONCENTRATION IN THE XXth CENTURY

CLIMATE “STABILIZATION”: KEY ISSUES (1)

1) Relationship between human activity, CO2 concentration and climate change • “ What is the range of natural variability in climate ? Is climate change occurring ?• Are greenhouse gases causing climate change ?• Is human activity the cause of increased concentrations of ghg ?• Has science determined wheter there is a “safe” level of concentration of ghg ? ”(from the White House to the Committee on the science of climate change”, US-NRC)

2) What Energy/Environmental policies to minimise climate change • What are the scenarios which permit the stabilization of CO2 concentration ?• How are they characterised in terms of energy consumption ?

CLIMATE “STABILIZATION”: KEY ISSUES (2)

• “Human activity are responsible for the increase (of CO2 concentration). The primary source, fossil fuel burning, has released roughly twice as much carbon dioxide as would be required to account for the observed increase. Tropical deforestation has also contributed…” (US-NRC) • Global mean surface air temperature warmed between 0.4 and 0.8°C during the 20th century”

3) Relationship between human activity, CO2 concentration and climate change

• UNFCCC (art.2):“The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner”. “Climate Sensitivity” (a doubling of CO2 concentration with respect to pre-industrial values (280 ppmv) can produce an increase of mean temperature by 1.5° C - 4.5° C (TAR/WG I - IPCC) 550 ppmv is the maximum level ?

A COMPARISON OFSCENARIOS

A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (1)

IPCC (WMO-UNEP), Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, 2000: 7 scenarios (selected form 40), 7 groups based on 4 storylines

IIASA-WEC, Global Energy Perspectives, 1998: 6 scenarios, 3 groups (high growth, middle course ed ecologically driven)

Time horizon: 1990-2100

A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (2): ANNUAL EMISSIONS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Gto

n o

f carb

on

2100: Highest scenario = 12 times

the lowest

2100: Highest scenario = 12 times

the lowest

A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (3): SCENARIOS WITH CLIMATE STABILISATION

IPCC/A1T: high economic growth, peak of population at the middle of the century, fast penetration of more efficient technologies;

IPCC/B1: a “converging” world, population like in scenario A1, but slower economic growth, with transition to a “service and information economy”;

5 scenarios (out of 13) with stabilization at 550 ppmv (or below):

• IIASA-WEC A3: economic growth like in IPCC B1, strong decrease of fossil fuels;• IIASA-WEC C1/C2, medium economic growth, high technological progress and international cooperation, energy/environmental policy and measures:

C1: nuclear is a transition technology; C2: new generation of nuclear, safe, small size, widely accepted

A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (4): “REFERENCE” SCENARIOS VS. SCENARIOS WITH STABILIZATION AT 450 PPMV• Substantial difference already in the medium-run, very large in the

long-run• Carbon intensity is lower by about 30% in 2050; with an increase of

renewable share by 60% a shift towords less carbon intensive fossil fuels is not sufficient

• Reduction of energy intensity is less substantial

A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (5): “REFERENCE” SCENARIOS VS. SCENARIOS WITH STABILIZATION AT 550 PPMV• Substantial difference only in the long-run• Carbon intensity lower by about 10% in 2050; increase of renewable

share is similar a shift towords less carbon intensive fossil fuels is sufficient

• Reduction of energy intensity is less significant

A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (6): RENEWABLES ENERGY SOURCES

In absolute values, renewable energy consumption does not

reach the highest value in scenarios with stabilization,

because they are often characterised by a lower level of

TPES.In relative terms, scenarios with

“stabilisationa” are characterised by a the share of renewables

which is at least 30% in 2050 and 50% in 2100

A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (7): RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

Scenarios with stabilization at 450 ppmv

Scenarios with stabilization at 450 ppmv are characterised by a complete

substitution of fossil fuels in the long period

A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (8): RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

Scenarios with stabilization at 550 ppmv

Scenarios with stabilization at 550 ppmv are characterised by a substantial consumption of

fossil fuels, even in the long period

A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (9): SOME CONCLUSIONS

What is important for stabilization is a substantial change of the whole energy system. Even if RES are increasing in all scenarios (with or without stabilization), this not imply automatically a “sustainable development”: RES increase is a necessary, but not sufficient,

condition it is necessary that RES become (at least in the long run) the main primary energy source; their share on TPES is much more important than their absolute value.

RES consumption is higher in scenarios with stabilization at 550 ppmv (than in scenarios with stabilization at 450 ppmv), because of the higher level of TPES

On the contrary, the share of RES consumption on TPES is much

higher in scenarios with stabilization at 450 ppmv (than in scenarios with stabilization at 550 ppmv), as in the long run fossil fuels become marginal;

and TPES is about half the one projected in scenarios with stabilization at 550 ppmv.

RES PERSPECTIVES IN EU

RES PERSPECTIVES IN EU (1): CURRENT TRENDS AND POSSIBLE IMPACT OF POLICIES

RES perspectives are getting better: more recent projections are more optimistic

than the previous ones. But as a share of TPES, RES increase is

still quite moderate: even in the Alternative scenario, the objective for

2010 is reached only in 2020.

RES PERSPECTIVES IN EU (2): POSSIBLE IMPACT OF POLICIES ON DIFFERENT SOURCES

The difference between the

projected evolution of RES and the White

Paper goals is mainly due to energy from

biomass (whose difficult deployment

is clearly highlighted in the WP), which (in 2010) is only half the potential. Growth of

other RES is even greater than in the

WP