Effects  of Structural Change and Climate Policy on Long-Term Shifts in Lifecycle Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint

Gouri Shankar Mishra

Sonia Yeh, Geoff Morrison, Jacob Teter (University of California at Davis)Raul Quiceno (Shell Research Limited)

Kenneth Gillingham (Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies)

The study projects lifecycle energy efficiency for crude, natural gas, coal, and nuclear and renewables to 2100 What is the impact of

carbon policy on the evolution of lifecycle efficiency?

What are the differences in lifecycle efficiencies of energy resources across regions? Between developed and

developing countries?

What are the relative roles of technological advancements and structural changes in evolution of lifecycle efficiency?

Carbon intensity of energy resources in terms of CO2/MJ(useful) instead of CO2/MJ(final)

Lifecycle Energy Efficiency = Useful Energy / Primary Energy

The lifecycle thermodynamic efficiency considers energy flows from primary to useful energy

Figure 1. Energy  system schematic showing the lifecycle stages (pz). The box represents the boundary for estimating lifecycle efficiency in this study.

MethodologyGeneral Change Assessment Model (GCAM) developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Partial-equilibrium model Links representations of global

energy, agriculture, land-use, and climate systems

Three end-uses: Industry, Transportation and Buildings (commercial and residential)

14 regions

Scenario Analysis• Total 15 scenarios• Carbon Policy – No carbon policy,

Moderate carbon policy (RCP6.0), and Aggressive Carbon Policy (RCP 4.5)

• CCS and No-CCS• Technological progress: Reference

and Advanced

Where are the energy losses?

Energy losses at various stages of fuel conversion and the useful energy consumption by energy resource for the BAU scenario

Time trends of Efficiency

FIG 3: Potential lifecycle energy efficiencies (blue) and total primary energy (orange) across 15 scenarios (Global Level)

Lifecycle efficiency (%)Primary Energy (EJ)

Time trends of Efficiency

Lifecycle efficiency (%)Primary Energy (EJ)

Average of No-Policy Scenarios

Lifecycle efficiency (%)Primary Energy (EJ)

Average of No-Policy ScenariosAverage of Moderate Carbon Policy Scenarios (RCP6.0)

Time trends of Efficiency

Lifecycle efficiency (%)Primary Energy (EJ)

Average of No-Policy ScenariosAverage of Moderate Carbon Policy Scenarios (RCP6.0)Average of High Carbon Policy Scenarios (RCP4.5)

There is no clear relationship between lifecycle efficiency and level of carbon price.

Complementary roles of (i) efficiency, (ii) energy conservation, and (iii) substitution of fossil resources with

decarbonized energyto achieve climate change mitigation goals.

Lifecycle efficiency (%)Primary Energy (EJ)

Average of No-Policy ScenariosAverage of Moderate Carbon Policy Scenarios (RCP6.0)Average of High Carbon Policy Scenarios (RCP4.5)

There is no clear relationship between lifecycle efficiency and level of carbon price.

Structural shifts dampen improvements in efficiency due to technological progress

FIG 4: Depiction of the change in lifecycle energy efficiency over time for structural plus technological shifts (solid lines) and for only technological shifts (dashed lines).

While technological advancements at each energy conversion process and end-use lead to important reductions in primary energy use, structural shifts in how energy is used dampens the gains in lifecycle efficiency.

Developing countries have a higher lifecycle efficiency on average than developed countries

Developing countries have a higher lifecycle efficiency on average than developed countries. This is due to both structural and technological differences.

Carbon Intensity – CO2 emissions per unit of useful energy

Ener

gy R

esou

rce

CI (

ton

CO

2/PJ

)

50

100

150

200

250

300

350CRUDE NG COAL ALL ENERGY

2005

2100

2005

2100

2005

2100

2005

2100

2005

2100 (BAU Scenario)

Carbon Intensity – CO2 emissions per unit of useful energy vs. final energy

Ener

gy R

esou

rce

CI (

ton

CO

2/PJ

)

50

100

150

200

250

300

350CRUDE NG COAL ALL ENERGY

2005

2100

2005

2100

2005

2100

2005

2100

CI – CO2/PJ(final energy)

CI – CO2/PJ(useful energy)

2005

2100 (BAU Scenario)

• Changes in CI(useful energy) over time are more dramatic than changes in CI(final energy)

• Quantum of differences between the two CIs varies across energy resources

Carbon Intensity – CO2 emissions per unit of final energy vs. useful energy

Ener

gy R

esou

rce

CI (

ton

CO

2/PJ

)

50

100

150

200

250

300

350CRUDE NG COAL ALL ENERGY

2005

2100

2005

2100

2005

2100

2005

2100

CI – CO2/PJ(final energy)

CI – CO2/PJ(useful energy)

2005

2100 (BAU)

2100 (Aggressive Policy without CCS)

• Carbon price has a higher impact on CI(useful) than CI(final) in case of coal

Implications on GHG EmissionsTotal CI, 2005

Global primary energy use and energy pathway lifecycle carbon intensity in 2005

Implications on GHG Emissions

Implications on GHG Emissions

Implications on GHG Emissions

Thank You

Effects  of Structural Change and Climate Policy on Long-Term Shifts in Lifecycle Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint

Gouri Shankar Mishra (gsmishra@ucdavis.edu)

Sonia Yeh, Gouri Shankar Mishra, Geoff Morrison, Jacob Teter (University of California at Davis)

Raul Quiceno (Shell Research Limited) Kenneth Gillingham (Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies)