Download Slide PPT

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
ENERGY SCENARIOS (2) :HOW THEY ARE PRODUCED
 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
ECONOMY
DEMOGRAFY
DEMAND OF USEFUL
ENERGY
choice of energy sources
and technologies
GLOBAL WARMING
TECNOLOGY
FUEL
MIX
CO2
CONCENTRATION
climate sensitivity
RESOURCES
transformation
INPUT
PRIMARY
ENERGY
DEMAND
EMISSIONS
OUTPUT
ENERGY SCENARIOS (3): USE

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

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)
3) Relationship between human activity, CO2 concentration
and climate change
• “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”
• 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 OF
SCENARIOS
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
40
2100:
Highest scenario = 12 times the lowest
35
Gton of carbon
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (3):
SCENARIOS WITH CLIMATE
STABILISATION
5 scenarios (out of 13) with stabilization at 550 ppmv
(or below):

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”;
• 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 are
characterised by a complete substitution of fossil fuels
in the long period
Scenarios with stabilization at 450 ppmv
A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (8): RENEWABLE
ENERGY SOURCES
Scenarios with stabilization at 550 ppmv are characterised by a
substantial consumption of fossil fuels, even in the long period
Scenarios with stabilization at 550 ppmv
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