effects of structural change and climate policy on long-term shifts in lifecycle energy efficiency...
TRANSCRIPT
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 Scenarios
Average of Moderate Carbon Policy Scenarios (RCP6.0)
Time trends of Efficiency
Lifecycle efficiency (%)
Primary Energy (EJ)
Average of No-Policy Scenarios
Average 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 Scenarios
Average 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
En
erg
y R
es
ou
rce
CI
(to
n C
O2
/PJ
)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350CRUDE NG COAL ALL ENERGY
20
05
21
00
20
05
21
00
20
05
21
00
20
05
21
00
2005
2100 (BAU Scenario)
Carbon Intensity – CO2 emissions per unit of useful energy vs. final energy
En
erg
y R
es
ou
rce
CI
(to
n C
O2
/PJ
)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350CRUDE NG COAL ALL ENERGY
20
05
21
00
20
05
21
00
20
05
21
00
20
05
21
00
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
En
erg
y R
es
ou
rce
CI
(to
n C
O2
/PJ
)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350CRUDE NG COAL ALL ENERGY
20
05
21
00
20
05
21
00
20
05
21
00
20
05
21
00
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 ([email protected])
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)