© G

RE

EN

PE

AC

E/X

UA

N C

AN

XIO

NG

report global energy scenario

energy[r]evolutionA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

EUROPEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY COUNCIL

© G

P/S

TE

VE

MO

RG

AN©

LA

NG

RO

CK

/ZE

NIT

/GP

2

image A LOCAL TIBETAN WOMAN WHO HAS FIVE CHILDREN AND RUNS A BUSY GUEST HOUSE IN THE VILLAGE OF ZHANG ZONG USES SOLAR PANELS TO SUPPLY ENERGY FOR HER BUSINESS.cover image A MAINTENANCE ENGINEER INSPECTS A WIND TURBINE AT THE NAN WIND FARM IN NAN’AO. GUANGDONG PROVINCE HAS ONE OF THE BEST WIND RESOURCES INCHINA AND IS ALREADY HOME TO SEVERAL INDUSTRIAL SCALE WIND FARMS.

partners

Greenpeace International,European Renewable Energy Council (EREC)

date October 2008

isbn 9789073361898

project manager & lead authorSven Teske, Greenpeace International

EREC Oliver Schäfer, Arthouros Zervos,

Greenpeace InternationalSven Teske, Jan Béranek, Stephanie Tunmore

contact sven.teske@greenpeace.org,schaefer@erec.org

editor Crispin Aubrey

research & co-authors DLR,Institute of Technical Thermodynamics,Department of Systems Analysis andTechnology Assessment, Stuttgart,Germany: Dr. Wolfram Krewitt, Dr.Sonja Simon, Dr. Thomas Pregger.DLR, Institute of Vehicle Concepts,Stuttgart, Germany: Dr. StephanSchmid Ecofys BV, Utrecht, TheNetherlands: Wina Graus, Eliane Blomen.

3

© G

RE

EN

PE

AC

E/J

OH

N N

OV

IS

regional partners: OECD NorthAmerica Sunna Institute: JanetSawin, Freyr Sverrisson; GP USA:Chris Miller, John Coequyt, Kert Davis.Latin America Universidad de Chile,Luis Vargas; GP Brazil: MarceloFurtado, Ricardo J. Fujii. OECDEurope/EU27 EREC: Oliver Schäfer,Arthouros Zervos

Transition Economies ValdimirTchouprov Africa & Middle EastReference Project: “Trans-MediterraneanInterconnection for ConcentratingSolar Power” 2006, Dr. Franz Trieb;GP Mediterranean: Nili Grossmann.India Rangan Banerjee, Bangalore,India; GP India: Srinivas Kumar, VinutaGopal, Soumyabrata Rahut.

Other Dev. Asia ISEP-Institute Tokyo:Mika Ohbayashi, Hironao MatsubaraTetsunari Iida; GP South East Asia:Jaspar Inventor, Tara Buakamsri. China Prof. Zhang Xilian, UniversityTsinghua, Beijing; GP China: AilunYang, Liu Shuang.

OECD Pacific ISEP-Institute Tokyo,Japan: Mika Ohbayashi; DialogInstitute, Wellington, New Zealand:Murray Ellis; GP Australia Pacific:Julien Vincent.

printing www.primaveraquint.nl

design & layout Jens Christiansen,Tania Dunster, www.onehemisphere.se

for further information about the global, regional and national scenarios please visit the energy [r]evolution website: www.energyblueprint.info/Published by Greenpeace International and EREC. Printed on 100% post consumer recycled chlorine-free paper.

“will we look into the eyes of our children and confessthat we had the opportunity,but lacked the courage?that we had the technology,but lacked the vision?”

4

image CHECKING THE SOLAR PANELS ON TOP OF THE GREENPEACE POSITIVE ENERGY TRUCK IN BRAZIL.

contents

foreword 4

introduction 6

executive summary 9

climate protection 15

implementing the energy [r]evolution indeveloping countries 19

nuclear threats 23

the energy [r]evolution 28

scenarios for a futureenergy supply 37

key results of the globalenergy [r]evolutionscenario 53

Of all the sectors of amodern economic system,the one that appears to begetting the maximumattention currently is theenergy sector. While therecent increase in oil pricescertainly requires sometemporary measures to tideover the problem ofincreasing costs of oilconsumption particularlyfor oil importing countries,there are several reasonswhy the focus must nowshift towards longer termsolutions. First and

foremost, of course, are the growing uncertaintiesrelated to oil imports bothin respect of quantities andprices, but there are severalother factors that require atotally new approach toplanning energy supply andconsumption in the future.Perhaps, the most crucialof these considerations isthe threat of global climatechange which has beencaused overwhelmingly inrecent decades by humanactions that have resultedin the build up ofgreenhouse gases (GHGs) in the Earth’s atmosphere.

foreword

1

2

3

4

5

6

© G

RE

EN

PE

AC

E/F

LA

VIO

CA

NN

AL

ON

GA

5

futu[r]e investment 100

energy resources & security of supply 109

energy technologies 132

energy efficiency – more with less 143

transport 160

cars of the future 174

policy recommendations 183

glossary & appendix 188

Impacts of climate change are diverse and serious, and unless theemissions of GHGs are effectively mitigated these would threaten tobecome far more serious over time. There is now, therefore, a renewedinterest in renewable sources of energy, because by creating and usinglow carbon substitutes to fossil fuels, we may be able to reduce emissionsof GHGs significantly while at the same time ensuring economic growthand development and the enhancement of human welfare across theworld. As it happens, there are major disparities in the levels ofconsumption of energy across the world, with some countries using largequantities per capita and others being deprived of any sources of modernenergy forms. Solutions in the future would, therefore, also have to cometo grips with the reality of lack of access to modern forms of energy forhundreds of millions of people. For instance, there are 1.6 billion peoplein the world who have no access to electricity. Households, in which thesepeople reside, therefore, lack a single electric bulb for lighting purposes,and whatever substitutes they use provide inadequate lighting andenvironmental pollution, since these include inefficient lighting devicesusing various types of oil or the burning of candles.

Future policies can be guided by the consideration of differentscenarios that can be linked to specific developments. This publicationadvocates the need for something in the nature of an energyrevolution. This is a view that is now shared by several people acrossthe world, and it is also expected that energy plans would be based ona clear assessment of specific scenarios related to clearly identifiedpolicy initiatives and technological developments. This edition ofEnergy [R]evolution Scenarios provides a detailed analysis of theenergy efficiency potential and choices in the transport sector. Thematerial presented in this publication provides a useful basis forconsidering specific policies and developments that would be of valuenot only to the world but for different countries as they attempt tomeet the global challenge confronting them. The work carried out inthe following pages is comprehensive and rigorous, and even thosewho may not agree with the analysis presented would, perhaps, benefitfrom a deep study of the underlying assumptions that are linked withspecific energy scenarios for the future.

Dr. R. K. PachauriDIRECTOR-GENERAL, THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES

INSTITUTE (TERI) AND CHAIRMAN, INTERGOVERNMENTAL

PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)

OCTOBER 2008

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

9

6

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

Energy supply has become a subject of major universal concern.High and volatile oil and gas prices, threats to a secure and stablesupply and not least climate change have all pushed it high up theinternational agenda. In order to avoid dangerous climate change,global CO2 emissions must peak no later than 2015 and rapidlydecrease after that. The technology to do this is available. Therenewables industry is ready for take off and opinion polls showthat the majority of people support this move. There are no realtechnical obstacles in the way of an Energy [R]evolution, all that ismissing is political support. But we have no time to waste. Toachieve an emissions peak by 2015 and a net reduction afterwards,we need to start rebuilding the energy sector now.

An overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion now agrees thatclimate change is happening, is caused in large part by humanactivities (such as burning fossil fuels), and if left unchecked willhave disastrous consequences. Furthermore, there is solid scientificevidence that we should act now. This is reflected in the conclusions,published in 2007, of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC), a UN institution of more than 1,000 scientistsproviding advice to policy makers.

The effects of climate change have in fact already begun. In 2008,the melting of the Arctic ice sheet almost matched the record seton September 16, 2007. The fact that this has now happened twoyears in a row reinforces the strong decreasing trend in the amountof summertime ice observed over the past 30 years.

introduction

“NOW IS THE TIME TO COMMIT TO A TRULY SECURE AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FUTURE – A FUTURE BUILT ON CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES,

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE CREATION OF MILLIONS OF NEW JOBS.”

© G

RE

EN

PE

AC

E/M

AR

KE

L R

ED

ON

DO

image WORKERS EXAMINE PARABOLIC TROUGH COLLECTORS IN THE PS10 CONCENTRATING SOLAR TOWER PLANT IN SEVILLA, SPAIN. EACH PARABOLIC TROUGH HAS A LENGTH OF150 METERS AND CONCENTRATES SOLAR RADIATION INTO A HEAT-ABSORBING PIPE INSIDE WHICH A HEAT-BEARING FLUID FLOWS. THE HEATED FLUID IS THEN USED TO HEATSTEAM IN A STANDARD TURBINE GENERATOR.

7

In response to this threat, the Kyoto Protocol has committed itssignatories to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% fromtheir 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The Kyoto signatories arecurrently negotiating the second phase of the agreement, coveringthe period from 2013-2017. Time is quickly running out. Signatorycountries agreed a negotiating ‘mandate’, known as the Bali ActionPlan, which they must complete with a final agreement on thesecond Kyoto commitment period by the end of 2009. By choosingrenewable energy and energy efficiency, developing countries canvirtually stabilise their CO2 emissions, whilst at the same timeincreasing energy consumption through economic growth. OECDcountries, on the other hand, will have to reduce their emissions byup to 80%. The Energy [R]evolution concept provides a practicalblueprint on how to put this into practice.

Renewable energy, combined with the smart use of energy, candeliver at least half of the world’s energy needs by 2050. Thisreport, ‘Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook’,shows that it is economically beneficial to cut global CO2 emissionsby over 50% within the next 42 years. It also concludes that amassive uptake of renewable energy sources is technically andeconomically possible. Wind power alone could produce about 40times more power than it does today, and total global renewableenergy generation could quadruple by then.

renewed energy [r]evolution

This is the second edition of the Energy [R]evolution. Since wepublished the first edition in January 2007, we have experienced anoverwhelming wave of support from governments, the renewablesindustry and non-governmental organisations. Since than we havebroken down the global regional scenarios into country specificplans for Canada, the USA, Brazil, the European Community, Japanand Australia, among many others.

More and more countries are seeing the environmental andeconomic benefits provided by renewable energy. The Brent crude oilprice was at $55 per barrel when we launched the first Energy[R]evolution report. Since than the price has only headed in onedirection - upwards! By mid-2008 it had reached a peak of over$140 per barrel and has subsequently stabilised at around $100.Other fuel prices have also shot up. Coal, gas and uranium havedoubled or even tripled in the same timeframe. By contrast, mostrenewable energy sources don’t need any fuel. Once installed, theydeliver energy independently from the global energy markets and atpredictable prices. Every day that another community switches torenewable energy is an independence day.

The Energy [R]evolution Scenario concludes that the restructuringof the global electricity sector requires an investment of $14.7trillion up to 2030. This compares with $11.3 trillion under theReference Scenario based on International Energy Agencyprojections. While the average annual investment required toimplement the Energy [R]evolution Scenario would need just under1% of global GDP, it would lower fuel costs by 25% - saving anannual amount in the range of $750 billion.

© G

P/N

ICK

CO

BB

ING

image ICEBERG MELTING ON GREENLAND’S COAST.

In fact, the additional costs for coal power generation alone from todayup to 2030 under the Reference Scenario could be as high as US$15.9 billion: this would cover the entire investment needed in renewableand cogeneration capacity to implement the Energy [R]evolutionScenario. These renewable sources will produce energy without anyfurther fuel costs beyond 2030, while the costs for coal and gas willcontinue to be a burden on national and global economies.

global energy scenario

The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and GreenpeaceInternational have produced this global energy scenario as apractical blueprint for how to urgently meet CO2 reduction targetsand secure an affordable energy supply on the basis of steadyworldwide economic development. Both of these goals are possibleat the same time. The urgent need for change in the energy sectormeans that this scenario is based only on proven and sustainabletechnologies, such as renewable energy sources and efficientdecentralised cogeneration. It therefore excludes so-called ‘CO2-freecoal power plants’, which are not in fact CO2 free and would createanother burden in trying to store the gas under the surface of theEarth with unknown consequences. For multiple safety andenvironmental reasons, nuclear energy is also excluded.

Commissioned from the Department of Systems Analysis andTechnology Assessment (Institute of Technical Thermodynamics) atthe German Aerospace Centre (DLR), the report develops a globalsustainable energy pathway up to 2050. The future potential forrenewable energy sources has been assessed with input from allsectors of the renewables industry around the world. The newEnergy [R]evolution Scenario also takes a closer look for the firsttime at the transport sector, including future technologies and howto implement energy efficiency.

The energy supply scenarios adopted in this report, which extendbeyond and enhance projections made by the International EnergyAgency, have been calculated using the MESAP/PlaNet simulationmodel. The demand side projection has been developed by theEcofys consultancy to take into account the future potential forenergy efficiency measures. This study envisages an ambitiousdevelopment pathway for the exploitation of energy efficiencypotential, focused on current best practice as well as technologiesavailable in the future. The result is that under the Energy[R]evolution Scenario, worldwide final energy demand can bereduced by 38% in 2050 compared to the Reference Scenario.

“renewable energy, combined with the smart use of energy, can deliver half of the world’senergy needs by 2050.”

8

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

the potential for renewable energy

The good news is that the global market for renewables is booming.Decades of technical progress have seen renewable energytechnologies such as wind turbines, solar photovoltaic panels,biomass power plants, solar thermal collectors and many othersmove steadily into the mainstream. The global market for renewableenergy is growing dramatically; in 2007 its turnover was over aUS$ 70 billion, almost twice as high as the previous year. The timewindow for making the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy,however, is still relatively short. Within the next decade many of theexisting power plants in the OECD countries will come to the end oftheir technical lifetime and will need to be replaced. But a decisiontaken to construct a coal or gas power plant today will result in theproduction of CO2 emissions and dependency on the resource and itsfuture costs lasting until 2050.

The power industry and utilities need to take more responsibilitybecause today’s investment decisions will define the energy supplyof the next generation. We strongly believe that this should be the‘solar generation’. Politicians from the industrialised world urgentlyneed to rethink their energy strategy, while the developing worldshould learn from past mistakes and build economies on the strongfoundations of a sustainable energy supply.

Renewable energy could more than double its share of the world’senergy supply - reaching up to 30% by 2030. All that is lacking isthe political will to promote its large scale deployment in allsectors at a global level, coupled with far reaching energy efficiencymeasures. By 2030 about half of global electricity could come fromrenewable energies.

The future of renewable energy development will strongly dependon political choices made by both individual governments and theinternational community. At the same time strict technicalstandards will ensure that only the most efficient fridges, heatingsystems, computers and vehicles will be on sale. Consumers have aright to buy products that don’t increase their energy bills andwon’t destroy the climate.

In this report we have also expanded the time horizon for theEnergy [R]evolution concept beyond 2050, to see when we couldphase out fossil fuels entirely. Once the pathway of this scenario hasbeen implemented, renewable energy could provide all global energyneeds by 2090. A more radical scenario – which takes the advancedprojections of the renewables industry into account – could evenphase out coal by 2050. Dangerous climate change might force usto accelerate the development of renewables faster. We believe thatthis would be possible, but to achieve it more resources must gointo research and development. Climate change and scarcity offossil fuel resources puts our world as we know it at risk; we muststart to think the unthinkable. To tap into the fast potential forrenewables and to phase out fossil fuels as soon as possible areamongst the most pressing tasks for the next generation ofengineers and scientists.

implementing the energy [r]evolution

Business as usual is not an option for future generations. TheReference Scenario based on the IEA’s ‘World Energy Outlook2007’ projection would almost double global CO2 emissions by2050 and the climate would heat up by well over 2°C. This wouldhave catastrophic consequences for the environment, the economyand human society. In addition, it is worth remembering that theformer chief economist of the World Bank, Sir Nicholas Stern,pointed out clearly in his landmark report that the countries whichinvest in energy saving technologies and renewable energies todaywill be the economic winners of tomorrow.

As Stern emphasised, inaction will be much more expensive in thelong run. We therefore call on all decision makers yet again tomake this vision a reality. The world cannot afford to stick to the‘business as usual’ energy development path: relying on fossil fuels,nuclear energy and other outdated technologies. Renewable energycan and will play a leading role in our collective energy future. Forthe sake of a sound environment, political stability and thrivingeconomies, now is the time to commit to a truly secure andsustainable energy future – a future built on clean technologies,economic development and the creation of millions of new jobs.

Arthouros ZervosEUROPEAN RENEWABLE

ENERGY COUNCIL (EREC)

OCTOBER 2008

Sven TeskeCLIMATE & ENERGY UNIT

GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL

© G

P/M

AR

KE

L R

ED

ON

DO

image THE PS10 CONCENTRATING SOLAR TOWER PLANT IN SEVILLA, SPAIN, USES 624 LARGEMOVABLE MIRRORS CALLED HELIOSTATS. THE MIRRORS CONCENTRATE THE SUN’S RAYS TO THE TOPOF A 115 METER (377 FOOT) HIGH TOWER WHERE A SOLAR RECEIVER AND A STEAM TURBINE ARELOCATED. THE TURBINE DRIVES A GENERATOR, PRODUCING ELECTRICITY.

“by 2030 about half of globalelectricity could come fromrenewable energies.”

9

climate threats and climate solutions

Global climate change caused by the relentless build-up ofgreenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere is already disruptingecosystems, resulting in about 150,000 additional deaths each year.An average global warming of 2°C threatens millions of people withan increased risk of hunger, malaria, flooding and water shortages.If rising temperatures are to be kept within acceptable limits thenwe need to significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Thismakes both environmental and economic sense. The maingreenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by using fossilfuels for energy and transport.

climate change and security of supply

Spurred by recent large increases in the price of oil, the issue ofsecurity of supply is now at the top of the energy policy agenda.One reason for these price increases is the fact that supplies of allfossil fuels – oil, gas and coal – are becoming scarcer and moreexpensive to produce. The days of ‘cheap oil and gas’ are coming toan end. Uranium, the fuel for nuclear power, is also a finiteresource. By contrast, the reserves of renewable energy that aretechnically accessible globally are large enough to provide about sixtimes more power than the world currently consumes - forever.

Renewable energy technologies vary widely in their technical andeconomic maturity, but there are a range of sources which offerincreasingly attractive options. These include wind, biomass,photovoltaic, solar thermal, geothermal, ocean and hydroelectricpower. Their common feature is that they produce little or nogreenhouse gases, and rely on virtually inexhaustible naturalsources for their ‘fuel’. Some of these technologies are alreadycompetitive. Their economics will further improve as they developtechnically, as the price of fossil fuels continues to rise and as theirsaving of carbon dioxide emissions is given a monetary value.

executive summary

“NOW IS THE TIME TO COMMIT TO A TRULY SECURE AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FUTURE – A FUTURE BUILT ON CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES,

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE CREATION OF MILLIONS OF NEW JOBS.”

© P

AU

L L

AN

GR

OC

K/Z

EN

IT/G

RE

EN

PE

AC

E

image CONSTRUCTION OF THE OFFSHORE WINDFARM AT MIDDELGRUNDEN NEAR COPENHAGEN, DENMARK.

10

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

At the same time there is enormous potential for reducing ourconsumption of energy, while providing the same level of energyservices. This study details a series of energy efficiency measureswhich together can substantially reduce demand in industry, homes,business and services.

Although nuclear power produces little carbon dioxide, there aremultiple threats to people and the environment from its operations.These include the risks and environmental damage from uraniummining, processing and transport, the risk of nuclear weaponsproliferation, the unsolved problem of nuclear waste and thepotential hazard of a serious accident. The nuclear option istherefore discounted in this analysis. The solution to our futureenergy needs lies instead in greater use of renewable energy sourcesfor both heat and power.

the energy [r]evolution

The climate change imperative demands nothing short of an energyrevolution. At the core of this revolution will be a change in theway that energy is produced, distributed and consumed.

the five key principles behind this shift will be to:

• Implement renewable solutions, especially through decentralisedenergy systems

• Respect the natural limits of the environment

• Phase out dirty, unsustainable energy sources

• Create greater equity in the use of resources

• Decouple economic growth from the consumption of fossil fuels

Decentralised energy systems, where power and heat are producedclose to the point of final use, avoid the current waste of energyduring conversion and distribution. They will be central to the Energy[R]evolution, as will the need to provide electricity to the two billionpeople around the world to whom access is presently denied.

Two scenarios up to the year 2050 are outlined in this report. TheReference Scenario is based on the Reference Scenario publishedby the International Energy Agency in World Energy Outlook 2007,extrapolated forward from 2030. Compared to the 2004 IEAprojections, World Energy Outlook 2007 (WEO 2007) assumes aslightly higher average annual growth rate of world Gross DomesticProduct (GDP) of 3.6%, instead of 3.2%, over the period 2005-2030. At the same time, WEO 2007 expects final energyconsumption in 2030 to be 4% higher than in WEO 2004.

China and India are expected to grow faster than other regions,followed by the Developing Asia group of countries, Africa and theTransition Economies (mainly the former Soviet Union). The OECDshare of global purchasing power parity (PPP) adjusted GDP willdecrease from 55% in 2005 to 29% by 2050.

The Energy [R]evolution Scenario has a target for worldwidecarbon dioxide emissions to be reduced by 50% below 1990 levelsby 2050, with per capita emissions reduced to less than 1.3 tonnesper year. This is necessary if the increase in global temperature is to

remain below +2°C. A second objective is the global phasing out ofnuclear energy. To achieve these targets, the scenario ischaracterised by significant efforts to fully exploit the largepotential for energy efficiency. At the same time, all cost-effectiverenewable energy sources are accessed for both heat and electricitygeneration, as well as the production of sustainable bio fuels.

Today, renewable energy sources account for 13% of the world’sprimary energy demand. Biomass, which is mostly used in the heatsector, is the main renewable energy source. The share of renewableenergies for electricity generation is 18%. The contribution ofrenewables to heat supply is around 24%, to a large extentaccounted for by traditional uses such as collected firewood. About80% of the primary energy supply today still comes from fossilfuels. The Energy [R]evolution Scenario describes a developmentpathway which turns the present situation into a sustainable energysupply through the following measures:

• Exploitation of the existing large energy efficiency potentials willensure that primary energy demand increases only slightly - fromthe current 474,900 PJ/a (2005) to 480,860 PJ/a in 2050,compared to 867,700 PJ/a in the Reference Scenario. Thisdramatic reduction is a crucial prerequisite for achieving asignificant share of renewable energy sources in the overallenergy supply system, for compensating the phasing out ofnuclear energy and for reducing the consumption of fossil fuels.

• The increased use of combined heat and power generation (CHP)also improves the supply system’s energy conversion efficiency,increasingly using natural gas and biomass. In the long term, thedecreasing demand for heat and the large potential for producingheat directly from renewable energy sources limits the furtherexpansion of CHP.

• The electricity sector will be the pioneer of renewable energyutilisation. By 2050, around 77% of electricity will be producedfrom renewable energy sources (including large hydro). Acapacity of 9,100 GW will produce 28,600 TWh/a renewableelectricity in 2050.

• In the heat supply sector, the contribution of renewables willincrease to 70% by 2050. Fossil fuels will be increasinglyreplaced by more efficient modern technologies, in particularbiomass, solar collectors and geothermal.

• Before sustainable bio fuels are introduced in the transportsector, the existing large efficiency potentials have to beexploited. As biomass is mainly committed to stationaryapplications, the production of bio fuels is limited by theavailability of sustainable raw materials. Electric vehiclespowered by renewable energy sources, will play an increasinglyimportant role from 2020 onwards.

• By 2050, 56% of primary energy demand will be covered byrenewable energy sources.

To achieve an economically attractive growth of renewable energysources, a balanced and timely mobilisation of all technologies is ofgreat importance. Such mobilisation depends on technical potentials,actual costs, cost reduction potentials and technological maturity.

image IN 2005 THE WORST DROUGHT INMORE THAN 40 YEARS DAMAGED THEWORLD’S LARGEST RAIN FOREST IN THEBRAZILIAN AMAZON, WITH WILDFIRESBREAKING OUT, POLLUTED DRINKINGWATER AND THE DEATH OF MILLIONSFISH AS STREAMS DRY UP.

11

costs

The slightly higher electricity generation costs (compared toconventional fuels) under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario arecompensated for, to a large extent, by reduced demand forelectricity. Assuming average costs of 3 cents/kWh forimplementing energy efficiency measures, the additional cost forelectricity supply under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario willamount to a maximum of $10 billion/a in 2010. These additionalcosts, which represent society’s investment in an environmentallybenign, safe and economic energy supply, continue to decrease after2010. By 2050 the annual costs of electricity supply will be $2,900billion/a below those in the Reference Scenario.

It is assumed that average crude oil prices will increase from $52.5per barrel in 2005 to $100 per barrel in 2010, and continue to riseto $140 per barrel in 2050. Natural gas import prices are expectedto increase by a factor of four between 2005 and 2050, while coalprices will nearly double, reaching $360 per tonne in 2050. A CO2

‘price adder’ is applied, which rises from $10 per tonne of CO2 in2010 to $50 per tonne of in 2050.

development of CO2 emissions

While CO2 emissions worldwide will double under the ReferenceScenario up to 2050, and are thus far removed from a sustainabledevelopment path, under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario they willdecrease from 24,350 million tonnes in 2003 to 10,590 m/t in2050. Annual per capita emissions will drop from 3.8 tonnes/capitato 1.2 t/capita. In spite of the phasing out of nuclear energy and agrowing electricity demand, CO2 emissions will decrease enormouslyin the electricity sector. In the long run efficiency gains and theincreased use of renewable electric vehicles, as well as a sharpexpansion in public transport, will even reduce CO2 emissions in thetransport sector. With a share of 35% of total emissions in 2050,the power sector will reduce significantly but remain the largestsource of CO2 emissions - followed by transport and industry.

to make the energy [r]evolution real and to avoiddangerous climate change, Greenpeace and ERECdemand for the energy sector that the followingpolicies and actions are implemented:

1. Phase out all subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

2. Internalise the external (social and environmental) costs ofenergy production through “cap and trade” emissions trading.

3. Mandate strict efficiency standards for all energy consumingappliances, buildings and vehicles.

4. Establish legally binding targets for renewable energy and combined heat and power generation.

5. Reform the electricity markets by guaranteeing priority access to the grid for renewable power generators.

6. Provide defined and stable returns for investors, for example by feed-in tariff programmes.

7. Implement better labelling and disclosure mechanisms to provide more environmental product information.

8. Increase research and development budgets for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

© A

NT

HO

NY

UP

TO

N 2

003

© G

P/A

NA

CL

AU

DIA

JA

TAH

Y

© M

AR

CU

S F

RA

NK

EN

/GP

image A WOMAN CLEANS SOLAR PANALS AT THEBAREFOOT COLLEGE IN TILONIA, RAJASTHAN, INDIA.

image NORTH HOYLE WIND FARM, UK’S FIRST WIND FARM IN THE IRISH SEA WHICHWILL SUPPLY 50,000 HOMES WITH POWER.

figure 0.1: global: development of primary energyconsumption under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• OCEAN ENERGY

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

•WIND

• HYDRO

• NATURAL GAS

• CRUDE OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

1,000,000

900,000

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

12

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

long term energy [r]evolution scenarios

The Energy [R]evolution Scenario outlines a sustainable pathwayfor a new way of using and producing energy up to 2050.Greenpeace, the DLR and the renewable energy industry have nowdeveloped this scenario further towards a complete phasing out offossil fuels in the second half of this century.

A long term scenario over almost 100 years cannot be exact.Projections of economic growth rates, fossil fuel prices or theoverall energy demand are of course speculative and by no meansrepresent forecasts. A regional breakdown is also not possible assufficient technical data, such as exact wind speed data in specificlocations, is not available. The grid integration of huge percentagesof fluctuating sources such as wind and solar photovoltaics equallyneeds further scientific and technical research. But such a longterm scenario can give us an idea of by when a complete fossil fueland CO2 free energy supply at a global level is possible, and whatlong term production capacities for renewable energy sources areneeded. In this context we developed two different long termscenarios: the long term Energy [R]evolution and the advancedEnergy [R]evolution. The long term scenario follows the sameprojections until the end of this century.

By 2050, renewable energy sources will account for more than50% of the world’s primary energy demand in the Energy[R]evolution Scenario. Approximately 44% of primary energysupply in 2050 still comes from fossil fuels, mainly oil used in thetransport sector, followed by gas and coal in the power sector.

The long term Energy [R]evolution Scenario continues thedevelopment pathway up to 2100 with the following outcomes:

• demand: Energy efficiency potentials are largely exploited andprimary energy demand therefore stabilises at 2060 levels.

• power sector: The electricity sector will pioneer the fossil fuelphase-out. By 2070 over 93% of electricity will be producedfrom renewable energy sources, with the remaining gas-firedpower plants mainly used for backup power. A capacity of 23,100GW will produce 56,800 TWh of renewable electricity in 2100 –17 times more than today.

From the currently available technologies, solar photovoltaics,followed by wind power, concentrated solar power and geothermal,have the highest potentials in the power sector. The use of oceanenergy might be significantly higher, but with the current state ofdevelopment, the technical and economical potential remains unclear.

• heating and cooling: The increased use of combined heat andpower generation (CHP) in 2050 will remain at the same level upto 2070. It will then fall back slightly to its 2040 level (5,500TWh) until the end of this century, as the decreasing demand forheat and the large potential for producing heat directly fromrenewable energy sources, such as solar collectors andgeothermal, limits the further expansion of CHP.

• In the heat supply sector, the contribution of renewables willincrease to 90% by 2080. A complete fossil fuels phase-out willbe realised shortly afterwards.

• transport: Efficient use of transport systems will still be themain way of limiting fuel use. Public transport systems willcontinue to be far more energy efficient than individual vehicles.However, we assume that cars will still be needed, especially inrural areas. Between 2050 and 2085 the use of oil in cars will bephased out completely and replaced mainly by electric vehicles.The electricity will come from renewable energy sources.

• By 2080, about 90% of primary energy demand will be coveredby renewable energy sources; in 2090 the renewable share willreach 98.2%.

The advanced Energy [R]evolution Scenario takes a much moreradical approach to the climate crisis facing the world. In order topull the emergency brake on global emissions it therefore assumesmuch shorter technical lifetimes for coal-fired power plants - 20years instead of 40 years. This reduces global CO2 emissions evenfaster and takes the latest evidence of greater climate sensitivityinto account. In order to fill the resulting gap, the annual growthrates of renewable energy sources, especially solar photovoltaics,wind and concentrated solar power plants, have been increased.

Growth rates increase from 2020 onwards to 2050. These expandedgrowth rates are in line with the current projections of the wind andsolar industry (see Global Wind Energy Outlook 2008, SolarGeneration 2008). So in the advanced scenario the capacities for solarand wind power generation appear 10 to 15 years earlier thanprojected in the Energy [R]evolution Scenario. The expansion ofgeothermal co-generation has also been moved 20 years ahead of itsexpected take-off. All other results remain the same as in the Energy[R]evolution Scenario, with the only changes affecting the power sector.

The main change for the power sector in the advanced Energy[R]evolution Scenario is that all conventional coal-fired powerplants are phased out by 2050. Between 2020 and 2050 a total ofabout 1,200 GW of capacity will be replaced by solar photovolatics,on- and offshore wind and concentrated solar power plants. By2050, 86% of electricity will be produced from renewable energysources and 96% by 2070. Again the remaining fossil fuel-basedpower production is from gas. Compared to the basic Energy[R]evolution Scenario the expected capacity of renewable energywill emerge 15 years ahead of schedule, while the overall level ofrenewable power generation from 2085 onwards will be the same.

13

From the renewables industry perspective, these larger quantitiesare able to be delivered. However, the advanced scenario requiresmore research and development into the large scale grid integrationof renewable energies as well as better regional meteorological datato optimise the mix of different sources.

It is important to highlight that in the Energy [R]evolutionScenario the majority of remaining coal power plants – which willbe replaced 20 years before the end of their technical lifetime – arein China and India. This means that in practice all coal powerplants built between 2005 and 2020 will be replaced by renewableenergy sources. To support the building of capacity in developingcountries significant new public financing, especially fromindustrialised countries, will be needed. It is vital that specificfunding mechanisms are developed under the international climatenegotiations that can assist the transfer of financial support toclimate change mitigation, including technology transfer.Greenpeace International has developed one option for how such afunding mechanism could work (see Chapter 2).

almost zero CO2 emissions by 2080

While worldwide CO2 emissions will decrease under the Energy[R]evolution Scenario from 10,589 million tonnes in 2050 (51%below 1990 levels) down to 425 m/t in 2090, the advancedscenario would reduce emissions even faster. By 2050, the advancedEnergy [R]evolution version would reduce CO2 emissions by 61%below 1990 levels, and 80% below by the year 2075. Annual percapita emissions would drop below 1 t/capita in 2050 under theadvanced scenario, compared with around 2060 under the basicEnergy [R]evolution.

Further CO2 reductions between 2040 and 2080 are only possiblein the transport sector, as the major remaining emitters arecombustion engines in cars. It is not possible to replace theremaining fossil fuelled cars with electric vehicles as this woulddrive electricity demand up again. The increased demand cannot bemet by renewables in this timeframe since this would exceed growthrates and grid capacities based on today’s knowledge. The only wayto cut vehicle emissions further would be to reduce kilometresdriven by about 40% between 2040 and 2080.

© G

P/H

U W

EI

image THE HUGE SHADOW OF A 60-METRE-HIGH WIND TURBINE EXTENDSACROSS THE GOBI DESERT FLOOR ATTHE HE LAN SHAN WIND FARM IN THENINGXIA PROVINCE, CHINA.

“forward-thinking governments can actnow to maximize employment andinvestment opportunities as we move to a renewable energy future.”

figure 0.2: global: primary energy demand in energy[r]evolution scenario until 2100FOSSIL FUEL PHASED OUT BY 2095

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

PJ/a 0

2005

2010

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

figure 0.3: global: primary energy demand in theadvanced energy [r]evolution scenario until 2100COAL POWER PLANTS PHASED OUT BY 2050

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

PJ/a 0

2005

2010

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

•SOLAR

•WIND

• BIOMASS

• GEOTHERMAL

• OCEAN ENERGY

• HYDRO

• NATURAL GAS

• CRUDE OIL

• COAL

• LIGNITE

• NUCLEAR

14

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

figure 0.4: global: electricity generation energy[r]evolution scenario until 2100COAL POWER PLANTS PHASED OUT BY 2085 (40 YEARS LIFETIME)

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

TWh/a 0

2005

2010

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

figure 0.5: global: electricity generation advancedenergy [r]evolution scenario until 2100COAL POWER PLANTS PHASED OUT BY 2050 (20 YEARS LIFETIME)

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

TWh/a 0

2005

2010

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

•SOLAR

•WIND

• BIOMASS

• GEOTHERMAL

• OCEAN ENERGY

• HYDRO

• NATURAL GAS

• CRUDE OIL

• COAL

• LIGNITE

• NUCLEAR

figure 0.6: global: CO2 emissions energy [r]evolutionscenario until 2100 80% GLOBAL CO2 REDUCTION BY 2085

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

Mil t/a 0

2005

2010

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

figure 0.7: global: CO2 emissions advanced energy[r]evolution scenario until 210080% GLOBAL CO2 REDUCTION BY 2075

••DISTRICT HEATING

• ELECTRICITY & STEAM GENERATION

•TRANSPORT

• OTHER SECTORS

• INDUSTRY

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

Mil t/a 0

2005

2010

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

15

1climate protection

GLOBAL THE KYOTO PROTOCOLINTERNATIONAL ENERGY POLICY

RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGETSDEMANDS FOR THE ENERGY SECTOR

“never before hashumanity been forcedto grapple with such an immenseenvironmental crisis.”GREENPEACE INTERNATIONALCLIMATE CAMPAIGN

1

ima

geT

HE

LO

CA

L A

LA

SK

AN

TE

LE

VIS

ION

STA

TIO

NB

RO

AD

CA

STS

A W

AR

NIN

G F

OR

HIG

H T

IDE

S A

ND

ER

OS

ION

AL

ON

G T

HE

SE

AS

IDE

DU

RIN

G A

20

06

OC

TO

BE

R S

TO

RM

WH

ICH

IM

PA

CT

S O

N T

HE

VIL

LA

GE

OF

SH

ISH

MA

RE

F. ©

GP

/RO

BE

RT

KN

OTH

16

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

The greenhouse effect is the process by which the atmosphere trapssome of the sun’s energy, warming the Earth and moderating ourclimate. A human-driven increase in ‘greenhouse gases’ hasenhanced this effect artificially, raising global temperatures anddisrupting our climate. These greenhouse gases include carbondioxide, produced by burning fossil fuels and through deforestation,methane, released from agriculture, animals and landfill sites, andnitrous oxide, resulting from agricultural production plus a varietyof industrial chemicals.

Every day we damage our climate by using fossil fuels (oil, coal andgas) for energy and transport. As a result, climate change is alreadyimpacting on our lives, and is expected to destroy the livelihoods ofmany people in the developing world, as well as ecosystems andspecies, in the coming decades. We therefore need to significantlyreduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This makes bothenvironmental and economic sense.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, theUnited Nations forum for established scientific opinion, the world’stemperature is expected to increase over the next hundred years byup to 5.8°C. This is much faster than anything experienced so far inhuman history. The goal of climate policy should be to keep theglobal mean temperature rise to less than 2°C above pre-industriallevels. At 2°C and above, damage to ecosystems and disruption tothe climate system increases dramatically. We have very little timewithin which we can change our energy system to meet thesetargets. This means that global emissions will have to peak and startto decline by the end of the next decade at the latest.

Climate change is already harming people and ecosystems. Itsreality can be seen in disintegrating polar ice, thawing permafrost,dying coral reefs, rising sea levels and fatal heat waves. It is notonly scientists that are witnessing these changes. From the Inuit inthe far north to islanders near the Equator, people are alreadystruggling with the impacts of climate change. An average globalwarming of 2°C threatens millions of people with an increased riskof hunger, malaria, flooding and water shortages. Never before hashumanity been forced to grapple with such an immenseenvironmental crisis. If we do not take urgent and immediate actionto stop global warming, the damage could become irreversible. Thiscan only happen through a rapid reduction in the emission ofgreenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

This is a summary of some likely effects if we allowcurrent trends to continue:

Likely effects of small to moderate warming

• Sea level rise due to melting glaciers and the thermal expansionof the oceans as global temperature increases. Massive releasesof greenhouse gases from melting permafrost and dying forests.

• A greater risk of more extreme weather events such asheatwaves, droughts and floods. Already, the global incidence of drought has doubled over the past 30 years.

• Severe regional impacts. In Europe, river flooding will increase,as well as coastal flooding, erosion and wetland loss. Floodingwill also severely affect low-lying areas in developing countriessuch as Bangladesh and South China.

• Natural systems, including glaciers, coral reefs, mangroves, alpineecosystems, boreal forests, tropical forests, prairie wetlands andnative grasslands will be severely threatened.

• Increased risk of species extinction and biodiversity loss.

The greatest impacts will be on poorer countries in sub-SaharanAfrica, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Andean South America aswell as small islands least able to protect themselves fromincreasing droughts, rising sea levels, the spread of disease anddecline in agricultural production.

longer term catastrophic effects Warming from emissions maytrigger the irreversible meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, addingup to seven metres of sea level rise over several centuries. Newevidence shows that the rate of ice discharge from parts of theAntarctic mean it is also at risk of meltdown. Slowing, shifting orshutting down of the Atlantic Gulf Stream current will havedramatic effects in Europe, and disrupt the global ocean circulationsystem. Large releases of methane from melting permafrost andfrom the oceans will lead to rapid increases of the gas in theatmosphere, and consequent warming.

1

clima

te pro

tection

|E

FF

EC

TS

17

© G

P/N

ICK

CO

BB

ING

image A MELT POOL NEAR SERMALIKFJORD, EAST GREENLAND, MADE BY THEHELHEIM GLACIER WHICH HASRECEDED AND MELTED AWAY. THELINES IN THE EARTH BANK ARESCULPTED BY THE MOVEMENT OF THEGLACIER’S RETREAT.

the kyoto protocol

Recognising these threats, the signatories to the 1992 UNFramework Convention on Climate Change agreed the KyotoProtocol in 1997. The Protocol finally entered into force in early2005 and its 165 member countries meet twice annually tonegotiate further refinement and development of the agreement.Only one major industrialised nation, the United States, has notratified Kyoto.

The Kyoto Protocol commits its signatories to reduce theirgreenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% from their 1990 level by thetarget period of 2008-2012. This has in turn resulted in theadoption of a series of regional and national reduction targets. Inthe European Union, for instance, the commitment is to an overallreduction of 8%. In order to help reach this target, the EU hasalso agreed a target to increase its proportion of renewable energyfrom 6% to 12% by 2010.

At present the Kyoto countries are negotiating the second phase ofthe agreement, covering the period from 2013-2017. Greenpeace iscalling for industrialised country emissions to be reduced by 18%from 1990 levels for this second commitment period, and by 30%for the third period covering 2018-2022. Only with these cuts dowe stand a reasonable chance of meeting the 2°C target.

The Kyoto Protocol’s architecture relies fundamentally on legallybinding emissions reduction obligations. To achieve these targets,carbon is turned into a commodity which can be traded. The aim isto encourage the most economically efficient emissions reductions,in turn leveraging the necessary investment in clean technologyfrom the private sector to drive a revolution in energy supply.

Negotiators are running out of time, however. Signatory countriesagreed a negotiating ‘mandate’, known as the Bali Action Plan, inDecember 2007, but they must complete these negotiations with afinal agreement on the second Kyoto commitment period by the endof 2009 at the absolute latest. Forward-thinking nations can moveahead of the game by implementing strong domestic targets now,building the industry and skills bases that will deliver the transitionto a low-carbon society, and thereby provide a strong platform fromwhich to negotiate the second commitment period.

1

clima

te pro

tection

|K

YO

TO

PR

OT

OC

OL

“we have to fully acknowledge the significanceand urgency of climate change.”HU JINTAOPRESIDENT OF CHINA

© G

P/S

UT

TO

N-H

IBB

ER

T

© G

P/T

ER

ES

A O

SO

RIO

© C

LIV

E S

HIR

LE

Y/G

P

© G

P/B

ELT

RA

© G

P/V

INA

I D

ITH

AJO

HN

images 1. THE AFTERMATH OF HURRICANE STAN IN MEXICO. ACCORDING TO THEMEXICAN GOVERNMENT FIGURES THERE ARE MORE THAN 1 MILLION, 100 THOUSANDPEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE FLOODS WITH AN UNKNOWNNUMBER WHO HAVE DISAPPEARED. IN CHIAPAS ALONE, 650 MM RAIN FELL IN A SHORTPERIOD OF TIME CAUSING EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TO ROADS AND HOUSES. 2. CHILDRENLIVING NEXT TO THE SEA PLAY IN SEA WATER THAT HAS SURGED INTO THEIR VILLAGECAUSED BY THE ‘KING TIDES’, BUOTA VILLAGE, TARAWA ISLAND, KIRIBATI, PACIFICOCEAN. GREENPEACE AND SCIENTISTS ARE CONCERNED THAT LOW LYING ISLANDS FACEPERMANENT INUNDATION FROM RISING SEAS DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE. 3. PREECHABUATHO, 49, IS A RESIDENT OF A VILLAGE IN LAEM TALUMPUK CAPE. HIS FAMILY, HOUSEAND VILLAGE ARE BEING THREATENED BY SEA LEVEL RISE DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE.LAEM TALUMPUK IS IN PAK PANANG DISTRICT IN THE SOUTHERN PROVINCE OF NAKHONSI THAMMARAT, ON THE EASTERN SHORE OF THE GULF OF THAILAND. CLIMATE CHANGE-INDUCED WIND PATTERNS HAVE INTENSIFIED THE SPEED OF COASTAL EROSION IN BOTHTHE GULF OF THAILAND AND THE ANDAMAN SEA. ON AVERAGE, 5 METRES OF COASTALLANDS IN THE REGION ARE LOST EACH YEAR. 4. THE DARK CLOUDS OF AN ADVANCINGTORNADO, NEAR FORT DODGE, IOWA, USA. 5. WOMEN FARMERS FROM LILONGWE, MALAWISTAND IN THEIR DRY, BARREN FIELDS CARRYING ON THEIR HEADS AID ORGANISATIONHANDOUTS. THIS AREA, THOUGH EXTREMELY POOR HAS BEEN SELF-SUFFICIENT WITHFOOD. NOW THESE WOMEN’S CHILDREN ARE SUFFERING FROM MALNUTRITION.

1

3

2

4 5

18

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

international energy policy

At present, renewable energy generators have to compete with oldnuclear and fossil fuel power stations which produce electricity atmarginal costs because consumers and taxpayers have already paidthe interest and depreciation on the original investments. Politicalaction is needed to overcome these distortions and create a levelplaying field for renewable energy technologies to compete.

At a time when governments around the world are in the process ofliberalising their electricity markets, the increasing competitivenessof renewable energy should lead to higher demand. Without politicalsupport, however, renewable energy remains at a disadvantage,marginalised by distortions in the world’s electricity markets createdby decades of massive financial, political and structural support toconventional technologies. Developing renewables will thereforerequire strong political and economic efforts, especially throughlaws that guarantee stable tariffs over a period of up to 20 years.Renewable energy will also contribute to sustainable economicgrowth, high quality jobs, technology development, globalcompetitiveness and industrial and research leadership.

renewable energy targets

In recent years, in order to reduce greenhouse emissions as well asincrease energy security, a growing number of countries haveestablished targets for renewable energy. These are either expressedin terms of installed capacity or as a percentage of energyconsumption. These targets have served as important catalysts forincreasing the share of renewable energy throughout the world.

A time period of just a few years is not long enough in theelectricity sector, however, where the investment horizon can be upto 40 years. Renewable energy targets therefore need to have short,medium and long term steps and must be legally binding in order tobe effective. They should also be supported by mechanisms such asfeed-in tariffs for renewable electricity generation. In order for theproportion of renewable energy to increase significantly, targetsmust be set in accordance with the local potential for eachtechnology (wind, solar, biomass etc) and be complemented bypolicies that develop the skills and manufacturing bases to deliverthe agreed quantity of renewable energy.

In recent years the wind and solar power industries have shownthat it is possible to maintain a growth rate of 30 to 35% in therenewables sector. In conjunction with the European PhotovoltaicIndustry Association1, the European Solar Thermal Power IndustryAssociation2 and the Global Wind Energy Council3, the EuropeanRenewable Energy Council and Greenpeace have documented thedevelopment of those industries from 1990 onwards and outlined aprognosis for growth up to 2020 and 2040.

demands for the energy sector

Greenpeace and the renewables industry have a clearagenda for the policy changes which need to be madeto encourage a shift to renewable sources. The main demands are:

1. Phase out all subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

2. Internalise external (social and environmental) costs through“cap and trade” emissions trading.

3. Mandate strict efficiency standards for all energy consumingappliances, buildings and vehicles.

4. Establish legally binding targets for renewable energy andcombined heat and power generation.

5. Reform the electricity markets by guaranteeing priority access tothe grid for renewable power generators.

6. Provide defined and stable returns for investors, for examplethrough feed-in tariff payments.

7. Implement better labelling and disclosure mechanisms to providemore environmental product information.

8. Increase research and development budgets for renewable energyand energy efficiency

Conventional energy sources receive an estimated $250-300 billion4

in subsidies per year worldwide, resulting in heavily distorted markets.Subsidies artificially reduce the price of power, keep renewable energyout of the market place and prop up non-competitive technologiesand fuels. Eliminating direct and indirect subsidies to fossil fuels andnuclear power would help move us towards a level playing field acrossthe energy sector. Renewable energy would not need special provisionsif markets factored in the cost of climate damage from greenhousegas pollution. Subsidies to polluting technologies are perverse in thatthey are economically as well as environmentally detrimental.Removing subsidies from conventional electricity would not only savetaxpayers’ money. It would also dramatically reduce the need forrenewable energy support.

1

clima

te pro

tection

|IN

TE

RN

AT

ION

AL

PO

LIC

Y - T

AR

GE

TS

- DE

MA

ND

S

© L

AN

GR

OC

K/Z

EN

IT/G

P

image OFF SHORE WINDFARM,MIDDELGRUNDEN, COPENHAGEN,DENMARK.

references1 SOLAR GENERATION, SEPTEMBER 20072 CONCENTRATED SOLAR POWER –NOW! NOVEMBER 20053 GLOBAL WIND ENERGY OUTLOOK, OCTOBER 20084 ‘WORLD ENERGY ASSESSMENT: ENERGY AND THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABILITY’,UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME, 2000

19

implementing the energy [r]evolution

GLOBAL BANKABLE SUPPORT SCHEMESLEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE

FIXED FEED-IN TARIFFSEMISSIONS TRADINGTHE FFET FUND

“bridging the gap.”GREENPEACE INTERNATIONALCLIMATE CAMPAIGN

2

image GEOTHERMAL POWER PLANT, NORTH ISLAND, NEW ZEALAND. © JOE GOUGH/DREAMSTIME2

20

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

This chapter outlines a Greenpeace proposal for a feed-in tariffsystem in developing countries financed by emissions trading fromOECD countries.

The Energy [R]evolution Scenario shows that renewable electricitygeneration has huge environmental and economic benefits. However itsgeneration costs, especially in developing countries, will remain higherthan those of existing coal or gas-fired power stations for the next fiveto ten years. To bridge this gap between conventional fossil fuel-basedpower generation and renewables, a support mechanism is needed.

The Feed in Tariff Fund Emissions Trading model (FFET) is aconcept conceived by Greenpeace International5. The aim is theexpansion of renewable energy in developing countries withfinancial support from industrialised nations – a mechanism toimplement renewable energy technology transfer via future JointImplementation, Clean Development Mechanism projects orTechnology Transfer programmes under the Kyoto Protocol. Withthe Kyoto countries currently negotiating the second phase of theiragreement, covering the period from 2013-2017, the proposedFFET mechanism could be used under all the existing flexiblemechanisms, auctioning cap & trade schemes or linked totechnology transfer projects.

The thinking behind the FFET in a nutshell is to link the feed-in tariffsystem, as it has been successfully applied in countries like Germanyand Spain, with emissions trading schemes such as the ETS inEurope through already established international funding channelssuch as development aid banks or the Kyoto Protocol mechanisms.

bankable support schemes

Since the early development of renewable energies within the powersector, there has been an ongoing debate about the best and mosteffective type of support scheme. The European Commissionpublished a survey in December 2005 which provides a good overviewof the experience so far. According to this report, feed-in tariffs areby far the most efficient and successful mechanism. Globally morethan 40 countries have adopted some version of the system.

Although the organisational form of these tariffs differs fromcountry to country, there are certain clear criteria which emerge asessential for creating a successful renewable energy policy. At theheart of these is a reliable, bankable support scheme for renewableenergy projects which provides long term stability and certainty6.Bankable support schemes result in lower cost projects becausethey lower the risk for both investors and equipment suppliers. Thecost of wind-powered electricity in Germany is up to 40% cheaperthan in the United Kingdom7, for example, because the supportsystem is more secure and reliable.

For developing countries, feed-in laws would be an ideal mechanismfor the implementation of new renewable energies. The extra costs,however, which are usually covered in Europe, for example, by avery minor increase in the overall electricity price for consumers,are still seen as an obstacle. In order to enable technology transferfrom Annex 1 countries to developing countries, a mix of a feed-inlaw, international finance and emissions trading could be used toestablish a locally based renewable energy infrastructure andindustry with the assistance of OECD countries.

learning from experience

The FFET program brings together three different supportmechanisms and builds on the experience from 20 years ofrenewable energy support programmes.

experience of feed-in tariffs

• Feed-in tariffs are seen as the best way forward and very popular,especially in developing countries.

• The main argument against them is the increase in electricityprices for households and industry, as the extra costs are sharedacross all customers. This is particularly difficult for developingcountries, where many people can’t afford to spend more moneyfor electricity services.

experience of emissions trading Emissions trading (betweencountries which need to make emissions reductions and countrieswhere renewable energy projects can be more easily or cheaplyimplemented) already plays a role in achieving CO2 reductionsunder the Kyoto Protocol. The experience so far is that:

• The CO2 market is unstable, with the price per tonne varying significantly.

• The market is still a ‘virtual’ market, with only limited actual flow of money.

• Putting a price on CO2 emissions makes fossil fuelled power moreexpensive, but due to the unstable and fluctuating prices it willnot help to make renewable energy projects more economicwithin the foreseeable future.

• Most systems are not yet delivering real cuts in emissions.

experience of international financing Finance for renewable energyprojects is one of the main obstacles in developing countries. While largescale projects have fewer funding problems, small, community basedprojects, whilst having a high degree of public acceptance, face financingdifficulties. The experiences from micro credits for small hydro projectsin Bangladesh, for example, as well as wind farms in Denmark andGermany, show how strong local participation and acceptance can beachieved. The main reasons for this are the economic benefits flowing tothe local community and careful project planning based on good localknowledge and understanding. When the community identifies theproject rather than the project identifying the community, the result isgenerally faster bottom-up growth of the renewables sector.

combining existing programmes

The basic aims of the Feed-in Tariff Fund Emissions Trading scheme areto facilitate the implementation of feed-in laws for developing countries,to use existing emissions trading schemes to link CO2 prices directly withthe uptake of renewable energy, and to use the existing infrastructure,ofinternational financial institutions to secure investment for projects andlower the risk factor. The FFET concept will have three parts – fixedfeed-in tariffs, emissions trading and a funding arrangement.

2

imp

lemen

ting

the en

ergy [r]evo

lutio

n|

SU

PP

OR

T S

CH

EM

ES

- EX

PE

RIE

NC

E - C

OM

BIN

ING

EX

IST

ING

PR

OG

RA

MM

ES

references5 IMPLEMENTING THE ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION, OCTOBER 2008, SVEN TESKE, GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL6 ‘THE SUPPORT OF ELECTRICITY FROM RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES’, EUROPEANCOMMISSION, 20057 SEE ABOVE REPORT, P. 27, FIGURE 4

21

1. fixed feed-in tariffs

Feed-in tariffs will provide bankable and long term stable support forthe development of a local renewable energy market in developingcountries. The tariffs should bridge the gap between conventionalpower generation costs and those of renewable energy generation.

The key parameters for feed-in tariffs under FFET are:

• Variable tariffs for different renewable energy technologies,depending on their costs and technology maturity, paid for 20 years.

• Payments based on actual generation in order to achieve properlymaintained projects with high performance ratios.

• Any additional finance required over the (20 year) period will besecured through a public fund, which could generate some capitalincome, for example via interest rates, from a soft loanprogramme to finance renewable energy projects (see below).

• Payment of the ‘additional costs’ for renewable generation will bebased on the Spanish system of the wholesale electricity priceplus a fixed premium.

A developing country which wants to apply for funding to operaterenewable energy projects under the FFET scheme will need toestablish clear regulations for the following:

• Guaranteed access to the electricity grid for renewable electricity projects.

• Establishment of a feed-in law based on successful examples.

• Transparent access to all data needed to establish the feed-intariff, including full records of generated electricity.

• Clear planning and licencing procedures.

2. emissions trading

The traded CO2 emissions will come from OECD countries on top ofany commitment under their national emission reduction targets.Every tonne of CO2 will be connected to a specific amount ofelectricity form renewable energy. A simple approach would be to usea factor of 1kg CO2 for 1 kWh of renewable electricity, which equalsthe amount of avoided CO2 emissions from an older coal power plant.A more complex method would be to use the average CO2 emissionsper kilowatt-hour in the specific country or the world’s average, whichis currently 0.6kg CO2/kWh. The Energy [R]evolution Scenario showsthat the average additional costs (under the proposed energy mix)between 2008 and 2015 are between 1 and 4 cents per kilowatt-hourso the price per tonne of CO2 would be between €10 and €40.

The key parameters for emissions trading under FFET will be:

• 1 tonne CO2 = 1,000 kWh renewable electricity (emissionsfactor: 1kg CO2/kWh)

• 1 tonne CO2 represents a 20 year ‘package’ of renewableelectricity (1,000 kWh = 20 years x annual 50 kWh renewableelectricity production)

3. the FFET fund

The FFET fund will act as a buffer between fluctuating CO2 emissionsprices and stable long term feed-in tariffs. The fund will secure thepayment of the required feed-in tariffs during the whole period (about20 years) for each project. This fund could be managed byintrernational financial institutions operating in Europe and CentralAsia or by Multilateral Development Banks. In order to provide accessto finance for small-scale businesses, a co-operation with a local bankwith a local presence in villages or cities would be desirable.

All renewable energy projects must have a clear set ofenvironmental criteria which are part of the national licensingprocedure in the country where the project will generate electricity.Those criteria will have to meet a minimum environmental standarddefined by an independent monitoring group. If there are alreadyacceptable criteria developed, for example for CDM projects, theyshould be adopted rather than reinventing the wheel. The boardmembers will come from NGOs, energy and finance experts as wellas members of the governments involved. The fund will not be ableto use the money for speculative investments. It can only providesoft loans for FFET projects.

The key parameters for the FFET fund will be:

• The fund will guarantee the payment of the total feed-in tariffsover a period of 20 years if the project is operated properly.

• The fund will receive annual income from emissions trading under FFET.

• The fund can provide soft loans to finance renewable energy projects.

• The fund will generate income from interest rates only.

• The fund will pay feed-in tariffs annually only on the basis of generated electricity.

• The operator of a FFET project is required to transmit all relevantdata about generation to a central database. This database will alsobe used to evaluate the performance of the project.

• Every FFET project must have a professional maintenancecompany to ensure high availability.

• The grid operator must do its own monitoring and sendgeneration data to the FFET fund. Data from the project andgrid operators will be compared regularly to check consistency.

2

imp

lemen

ting

the en

ergy [r]evo

lutio

n|

FIX

ED

FE

ED

-IN T

AR

IFF

S - E

MIS

SIO

NS

TR

AD

ING

- TH

E F

FE

T F

UN

D

© G

P/C

OB

BIN

G

© G

P/R

OD

RIG

O B

AL

ÈIA

image GREENPEACE INSTALLED 40 PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR PANELS THAT MUST SUPPLY30% TO 60% OF THE DAILY DEMAND OF ELECTRICITY IN THE GREENPEACE OFFICE INSAO PAULO. THE PANELS ARE CONNECTED TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY GRID, WHICH ISNOT ALLOWED BY LAW IN BRAZIL. ONLY ABOUT 20 SYSTEMS OF THIS TYPE EXIST INBRAZIL AS THEY REQUIRE A SPECIAL LICENSE TO FUNCTION.

image PLANT NEAR REYKJAVIK WHERE ENERGY IS PRODUCED FROM THEGEOTHERMAL ACTIVITY.

22

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

2

imp

lemen

ting

the en

ergy [r]evo

lutio

n|

FF

ET

SC

HE

ME

FFETroles and responsibilities

developing country:

Legislation:• feed-in law• guaranteed grid access• licensing

(inter-) national finance institute(s)

Organising and Monitoring:• organize financial flow• monitoring• providing soft loans• guarantee the payment of the feed-in tariff

OECD country

Legislation:• CO2 credits under CDM• tax from Cap & Trade• auctioning CO2 Certificates

figure 2.1: ffet scheme

© G

RE

EN

PE

AC

E/X

UA

N C

AN

XIO

NG

image NAN WIND FARM IN NAN’AO. GUANGDONG PROVINCE HAS ONE OF THE BEST WIND RESOURCES IN CHINA AND IS ALREADY HOME TO SEVERAL INDUSTRIAL SCALE WIND FARMS.MASSIVE INVESTMENT IN WIND POWER WILL HELP CHINA OVERCOME ITS RELIANCE ON CLIMATE DESTROYING FOSSIL FUEL POWER AND SOLVE ITS ENERGY SUPPLY PROBLEM.

23

3nuclear power and climate protection

GLOBAL NUCLEAR PROLIFERATIONNUCLEAR WASTESAFETY RISKS

“safety and securityrisks, radioactivewaste, nuclearproliferation...”GREENPEACE INTERNATIONALCLIMATE CAMPAIGN

3

image SIGN ON A RUSTY DOOR AT CHERNOBYL ATOMIC STATION. © DMYTRO/DREAMSTIME

24

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

Nuclear energy is a relatively small industry with big problems. Itcovers just one sixteenth of the world’s primary energy consumption,a share set to decline over the coming decades. The average age ofoperating commercial nuclear reactors is 23 years, so more powerstations are being shut down than started. In 2007, world nuclearproduction fell by 1.8 % and the number of operating reactors was439, five less than the historical peak of 2002.

In terms of new power stations, the amount of nuclear capacityadded annually between 2000 and 2007 was 2,500 MWe onaverage. This was six times less than wind power (13,300 MWe perannum between 2000 and 2007). In 2007, newly constructedrenewable energy power plants in Germany generated 13 TWh ofelectricity – as much as two large nuclear units.

Despite the rhetoric of a ‘nuclear renaissance’, the industry isstruggling with a massive increase in costs and construction delaysas well as safety and security problems linked to reactor operation,radioactive waste and nuclear proliferation.

a solution to climate protection?

The promise of nuclear energy to contribute to both climateprotection and energy supply needs to be checked against reality. Inthe most recent Energy Technology Perspectives report published bythe International Energy Agency8, for example, its Blue Mapscenario outlines a future energy mix which would halve globalcarbon emissions by the middle of this century. To reach this goalthe IEA assumes a massive expansion of nuclear power betweennow and 2050, with installed capacity increasing four-fold andelectricity generation reaching 9,857 TWh/year, compared to 2,608TWh in 2007. In order to achieve this, the report says that 32large reactors (1,000 MWe) would have to be built every yearfrom now until 2050. This would be unrealistic, expensive,hazardous and too late to make a difference.

unrealistic: Such a rapid growth is practically impossible given thetechnical limitations. This scale of development was achieved in thehistory of nuclear power for only two years at the peak of the state-driven boom of the mid-1980s. It is unlikely to be achieved again,not to mention maintained for 40 consecutive years. While 1984and 1985 saw 31 GW of newly added nuclear capacity, the decadeaverage was 17 GW annually. In the past ten years, only three largereactors have been brought on line each year, and the currentproduction capacity of the global nuclear industry cannot delivermore than an annual six units.

expensive: The IEA scenario assumes very optimistic investmentcosts of $2,100/kWe installed, in line with what the industry hasbeen recently promising. The reality indicates three times thatmuch. Recent estimates by US business analysts Moody’s (June2008) put the cost of nuclear investment as high as $7,000/kWe.Price quotes for projects under preparation in the US cover a rangefrom $5,200 to 8,000/kWe9. The latest cost estimate for the firstFrench EPR pressurised water reactor being built in Finland is$5,200/kWe, a figure likely to increase for later reactors as pricesescalate. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the cost indexfor nuclear components has risen by 173 % since 2000 – a neartripling over the past eight years10. Building 1,400 large reactors(1,000 MWe), even at the current cost of about $7,000/kWe,would require an investment of US$9.8 trillion.

hazardous: Massive expansion of nuclear energy would necessarilylead to a large increase in related hazards, such as serious reactoraccidents, growing stockpiles of deadly high level nuclear wastewhich will need to be safeguarded for thousands of years andpotential proliferation of both nuclear technologies and materialsthat can be diverted to military or terrorist use. The 1,400 largeoperating reactors in 2050 would generate an annual 35,000 tonsof spent fuel (assuming they are light water reactors, the mostcommon design for most new projects). This also means theproduction of 350,000 kilograms of plutonium each year, enough tobuild 35,000 crude nuclear weapons.

Most of the expected electricity demand growth by 2050 will occurin non-OECD countries. This means that a large proportion of thenew reactors would need to be built in those countries in order tohave a global impact on emissions. At the moment, the list ofcountries with announced nuclear ambitions is long and worrying interms of their political situation and stability, especially with theneed to guarantee against the hazards of accidents andproliferation for many decades. The World Nuclear Associationlisted the Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries in May 2008 asAlbania, Belarus, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, Norway, Poland, Estonia,Latvia, Ireland, Iran, the Gulf states, Yemen, Israel, Syria, Jordan,Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Azerbaijan, Georgia,Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam,Thailand, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Venezuela,Nigeria, Ghana and Namibia.

slow: Climate science says that we need to reach a peak of globalgreenhouse gas emissions in 2015 and reduce them by 20 % in2020. Even in developed countries with an established nuclearinfrastructure it takes at least a decade from the decision to build areactor to the delivery of its first electricity, and often much longer.Out of 35 reactors officially listed as under construction by the IEAin mid-July 2008, one third had been in this category for two decadesor more, indicating that these projects are not progressing. Thismeans that even if the world’s governments decided to implementstrong nuclear expansion now, only a few reactors would startgenerating electricity before 2020. The contribution from nuclearpower towards reducing emissions would come too late to help.

3

nu

clear p

ow

er|

A S

OL

UT

ION

?

references8 ‘ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PERSPECTIVES 2008- SCENARIOS & STRATEGIES TO 2050’, IEA9 PLATTS, 2008; ENERGY BIZ, MAY/JUNE 200810 WALL STREET JOURNAL, 29 MAY 2008

© G

P/R

EY

NA

ER

S

image IRAQ 17 JUNE 2003. GREENPEACEACTIVISTS MAKE MEASURMENTSOUTSIDE THE AL-MAJIDAT SCHOOL FORGIRLS (900 PUPILS) NEXT TO AL-TOUWAITHA NUCLEAR FACILITY. HAVINGFOUND LEVELS OF RADIOACTIVITY 3,000TIMES HIGHER THAN BACKGROUNDLEVEL THEY CORDONNED THE AREA OFF.

25

nuclear power blocks solutions

Even if the ambitious nuclear scenario is implemented, regardlessof costs and hazards, the IEA concludes that the contribution ofnuclear power to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from theenergy sector would be only 4.6 % - less than 3 % of the globaloverall reduction required.

There are other technologies that can deliver much larger emissionreductions, and much faster. Their investment costs are lower andthey do not create global security risks. Even the IEA finds that thecombined potential of efficiency savings and renewable energy to cutemissions by 2050 is more than ten times larger than that of nuclear.

The world has limited time, finance and industrial capacity to changeour energy sector and achieve a large reduction in greenhouseemissions. Choosing the pathway by spending $10 trillion on nucleardevelopment would be a fatally wrong decision. It would not save theclimate but it would necessarily take resources away from solutionsdescribed in this report and at the same time create serious globalsecurity hazards. Therefore new nuclear reactors are a clearlydangerous obstacle to the protection of the climate.

nuclear power in the energy [r]evolution scenario

For the reasons explained above, the Energy [R]evolution Scenarioenvisages a nuclear phase-out. Existing reactors would be closed atthe end of their average operational lifetime of 35 years. Weassume that no new construction is started after 2008 and onlytwo thirds of the reactors currently under construction will befinally put into operation.

the dangers of nuclear power

Although the generation of electricity through nuclear powerproduces much less carbon dioxide than fossil fuels, there aremultiple threats to people and the environment from its operations.The main risks are:

• Nuclear Proliferation

• Nuclear Waste

• Safety Risks

These are the background to why nuclear power has been discountedas a future technology in the Energy [R]evolution Scenario.

1. nuclear proliferation

Manufacturing a nuclear bomb requires fissile material - eitheruranium-235 or plutonium-239. Most nuclear reactors use uraniumas a fuel and produce plutonium during their operation. It isimpossible to adequately protect a large reprocessing plant toprevent the diversion of plutonium to nuclear weapons. A small-scale plutonium separation plant can be built in four to six months,so any country with an ordinary reactor can produce nuclearweapons relatively quickly.

The result is that nuclear power and nuclear weapons have grownup like Siamese twins. Since international controls on nuclearproliferation began, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea haveall obtained nuclear weapons, demonstrating the link between civiland military nuclear power. Both the International Atomic EnergyAgency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT)embody an inherent contradiction - seeking to promote thedevelopment of ‘peaceful’ nuclear power whilst at the same timetrying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons

Israel, India and Pakistan all used their civil nuclear operations todevelop weapons capability, operating outside internationalsafeguards. North Korea developed a nuclear weapon even as asignatory of the NPT. A major challenge to nuclear proliferationcontrols has been the spread of uranium enrichment technology toIran, Libya and North Korea. The Director General of theInternational Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has saidthat “should a state with a fully developed fuel-cycle capabilitydecide, for whatever reason, to break away from its non-proliferation commitments, most experts believe it could produce anuclear weapon within a matter of months11.”

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changehas also warned that the security threat of trying to tackle climatechange with a global fast reactor programme (using plutoniumfuel) “would be colossal"12. Even without fast reactors, all of thereactor designs currently being promoted around the world could befuelled by MOX (mixed oxide fuel), from which plutonium can beeasily separated.

Restricting the production of fissile material to a few ‘trusted’countries will not work. It will engender resentment and create acolossal security threat. A new UN agency is needed to tackle thetwin threats of climate change and nuclear proliferation by phasingout nuclear power and promoting sustainable energy, in the processpromoting world peace rather than threatening it.

3

nu

clear p

ow

er|

NU

CL

EA

R P

RO

LIF

ER

AT

ION

references11 MOHAMED ELBARADEI, ‘TOWARDS A SAFER WORLD’, ECONOMIST, 18 OCTOBER 200312 IPCC WORKING GROUP II, ‘IMPACTS, ADAPTATIONS AND MITIGATION OF CLIMATECHANGE: SCIENTIFIC-TECHNICAL ANALYSES’, 1995

© G

P/S

HIR

LE

Y

© H

AN

SE

N/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

image NUCLEAR REACTOR IN LIANYUNGANG, CHINA.

image CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR POWERSTATION, UKRAINE.

26

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

3

nu

clear p

ow

er|

NU

CL

EA

R W

AS

TE

- SA

FE

TY

RIS

KS

2. nuclear waste

The nuclear industry claims it can ‘dispose’ of its nuclear waste byburying it deep underground, but this will not isolate the radioactivematerial from the environment forever. A deep dump only slowsdown the release of radioactivity into the environment. The industrytries to predict how fast a dump will leak so that it can claim thatradiation doses to the public living nearby in the future will be“acceptably low”. But scientific understanding is not sufficientlyadvanced to make such predictions with any certainty.

As part of its campaign to build new nuclear stations around theworld, the industry claims that problems associated with buryingnuclear waste are to do with public acceptability rather thantechnical issues. It points to nuclear dumping proposals in Finland,Sweden or the United States to underline its argument.

The most hazardous waste is the highly radioactive waste (or spent)fuel removed from nuclear reactors, which stays radioactive forhundreds of thousands of years. In some countries the situation isexacerbated by ‘reprocessing’ this spent fuel – which involves dissolvingit in nitric acid to separate out weapons-usable plutonium. This processleaves behind a highly radioactive liquid waste. There are about270,000 tonnes of spent nuclear waste fuel in storage, much of it atreactor sites. Spent fuel is accumulating at around 12,000 tonnes peryear, with around a quarter of that going for reprocessing13. Nocountry in the world has a solution for high level waste.

The IAEA recognises that, despite its international safetyrequirements, “…radiation doses to individuals in the future canonly be estimated and that the uncertainties associated with theseestimates will increase for times farther into the future.”

The least damaging option for waste already created at the currenttime is to store it above ground, in dry storage at the site of origin,although this option also presents major challenges and threats. Theonly real solution is to stop producing the waste.

3. safety risks

Windscale (1957), Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986)and Tokaimura (1999) are only a few of the hundreds of nuclearaccidents which have occurred to date.

A simple power failure at a Swedish nuclear plant in 2006highlighted our vulnerability to nuclear catastrophe. Emergencypower systems at the Forsmark plant failed for 20 minutes during apower cut and four of Sweden’s 10 nuclear power stations had tobe shut down. If power was not restored there could have been amajor incident within hours. A former director of the Forsmarkplant later said that "it was pure luck there wasn’t a meltdown”.The closure of the plants removed at a stroke roughly 20% ofSweden’s electricity supply.

A nuclear chain reaction must be kept under control, and harmfulradiation must, as far as possible, be contained within the reactor,with radioactive products isolated from humans and carefullymanaged. Nuclear reactions generate high temperatures, and fluidsused for cooling are often kept under pressure. Together with theintense radioactivity, these high temperatures and pressures makeoperating a reactor a difficult and complex task.

The risks from operating reactors are increasing and the likelihoodof an accident is now higher than ever. Most of the world’s reactorsare more than 20 years old and therefore more prone to agerelated failures. Many utilities are attempting to extend their lifefrom the 40 years or so they were originally designed for to around60 years, posing new risks.

De-regulation has meanwhile pushed nuclear utilities to decreasesafety-related investments and limit staff whilst increasing reactorpressure and operational temperature and the burn-up of the fuel.This accelerates ageing and decreases safety margins.

New so-called passively safe reactors have many safety systemsreplaced by ‘natural’ processes, such as gravity fed emergencycooling water and air cooling. This can make them more vulnerableto terrorist attack.

“... reactors with gravity fed emergencycooling water and air cooling can makethem more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.”

references13 REFERENCE: WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE, WORLD NUCLEARASSOCIATION, INFORMATION AND ISSUE BRIEF, FEBRUARY 2006. HTTP://WWW.WORLD-NUCLEAR.ORG/INFO/INF04.HTM

27

© G

P/H

IGU

CH

I

image FISHERMEN IN FRONT OF THEMIHAMA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT,JAPAN AFTER AN ACCIDENT AT THEPLANT IN 1991.

5. reprocessing

Reprocessing involves the chemicalextraction of contaminated uranium andplutonium from used reactor fuel rods.There are now over 230,000 kilogramsof plutonium stockpiled around theworld from reprocessing – fivekilograms is sufficient for one nuclearbomb. Reprocessing is not the same asrecycling: the volume of waste increasesmany tens of times and millions of litresof radioactive waste are discharged intothe sea and air each day. The processalso demands the transport ofradioactive material and nuclear wasteby ship, rail, air and road around theworld. An accident or terrorist attackcould release vast quantities of nuclearmaterial into the environment. There isno way to guarantee the safety ofnuclear transport.

6. waste storage

There is not a single finalstorage facility for nuclearwaste available anywhere in theworld. Safe secure storage ofhigh level waste over thousandsof years remains unproven,leaving a deadly legacy forfuture generations. Despite thisthe nuclear industry continuesto generate more and morewaste each day.

1. uranium mining

Uranium, used in nuclearpower plants, is extractedfrom huge mines in Canada,Australia, Russia andNigeria. Mine workers canbreathe in radioactive gasfrom which they are indanger of contracting lungcancer. Uranium miningproduces huge quantities ofmining debris, includingradioactive particles whichcan contaminate surfacewater and food.

2. uraniumenrichment

Natural uranium andconcentrated ‘yellow cake’contain just 0.7% offissionable uranium 235. To usethe material in a nuclearreactor, the share must go up to3 or 5 %. This process can becarried out in 16 facilitiesaround the world. 80% of thetotal volume is rejected as‘tails’, a waste product.Enrichment generates massiveamounts of ‘depleted uranium’that ends up as long-livedradioactive waste or is used inweapons or as tank shielding.

3. fuel rod –production

Enriched material is convertedinto uranium dioxide andcompressed to pellets in fuelrod production facilities. Thesepellets fill 4m long tubes calledfuel rods. There are 29 fuel rodproduction facilities globally.The worst accident in this typeof facility happened inSeptember 1999 in Tokaimura,Japan, when two workers died.Several hundred workers andvillagers have sufferedradioactive contamination.

4. power plant operation

Uranium nuclei are split in a nuclearreactor, releasing energy which heats upwater. The compressed steam isconverted in a turbine generator intoelectricity. This process creates aradioactive ‘cocktail’ which involvesmore than 100 products. One of these isthe highly toxic and long-lastingplutonium. Radioactive material canenter the environment through accidentsat nuclear power plants. The worstaccident to date happened at Chernobylin the then Soviet Union in 1986. Anuclear reactor generates enoughplutonium every year for the productionof as many as 39 nuclear weapons.

figure 3.1: the nuclear fuel cycle

U#923

nu

clear p

ow

er|

NU

CL

EA

R F

UE

L C

YC

LE

28

4the energy [r]evolution

GLOBAL KEY PRINCIPLESA DEVELOPMENT PATHWAYA DECENTRALISED ENERGY FUTURE

OPTIMISED INTEGRATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY

FUTURE POWER GRIDSRURAL ELECTRIFICATION

“half the solution toclimate change is thesmart use of power.”GREENPEACE INTERNATIONALCLIMATE CAMPAIGN

4

DECOUPLE GROWTH FROM FOSSIL FUEL USE. ©

G. POR

OPA

T/D

RE

AM

ST

IME

29

The climate change imperative demands nothing short of an energyrevolution. The expert consensus is that this fundamental changemust begin very soon and be well underway within the next tenyears in order to avert the worst impacts. What we need is acomplete transformation in the way we produce, consume anddistribute energy and at the same time maintain economic growth.Nothing short of such a revolution will enable us to limit globalwarming to less than a rise in temperature of 2°C, above which theimpacts become devastating.

Current electricity generation relies mainly on burning fossil fuels,with their associated CO2 emissions, in very large power stationswhich waste much of their primary input energy. More energy islost as the power is moved around the electricity grid network andconverted from high transmission voltage down to a supply suitablefor domestic or commercial consumers. The system is innatelyvulnerable to disruption: localised technical, weather-related or evendeliberately caused faults can quickly cascade, resulting inwidespread blackouts. Whichever technology is used to generateelectricity within this old fashioned configuration, it will inevitablybe subject to some, or all, of these problems. At the core of theEnergy [R]evolution there therefore needs to be a change in theway that energy is both produced and distributed.

key principles

the energy [r]evolution can be achieved by adhering to five key principles:

1.respect natural limits – phase out fossil fuels by the end ofthis century We must learn to respect natural limits. There is onlyso much carbon that the atmosphere can absorb. Each year weemit over 25 billion tonnes of carbon equivalent; we are literallyfilling up the sky. Geological resources of coal could provideseveral hundred years of fuel, but we cannot burn them and keepwithin safe limits. Oil and coal development must be ended.

The Energy [R]evolution Scenario has a target to reduce energyrelated CO2 emissions to a maximum of 10 Gt (Giga tonnes) by2050 and phase out fossil fuels by 2085.

2.equity and fairness As long as there are natural limits thereneeds to be a fair distribution of benefits and costs withinsocieties, between nations and between present and futuregenerations. At one extreme, a third of the world’s population hasno access to electricity, whilst the most industrialised countriesconsume much more than their fair share.

The effects of climate change on the poorest communities areexacerbated by massive global energy inequality. If we are toaddress climate change, one of the principles must be equity andfairness, so that the benefits of energy services – such as light,heat, power and transport – are available for all: north andsouth, rich and poor. Only in this way can we create true energysecurity, as well as the conditions for genuine human wellbeing.

The Energy [R]evolution Scenario has a target to achieve energyequity as soon as technically possible. By 2050 the average percapita emission should be between 1 and 2 tonnes of CO2.

3.implement clean, renewable solutions and decentraliseenergy systems There is no energy shortage. All we need to do isuse existing technologies to harness energy effectively andefficiently. Renewable energy and energy efficiency measures areready, viable and increasingly competitive. Wind, solar and otherrenewable energy technologies have experienced double digitmarket growth for the past decade.

Just as climate change is real, so is the renewable energy sector.Sustainable decentralised energy systems produce less carbonemissions, are cheaper and involve less dependence on importedfuel. They create more jobs and empower local communities.Decentralised systems are more secure and more efficient. This iswhat the Energy [R]evolution must aim to create.

To stop the Earth’s climate spinning out of control, most of the world’sfossil fuel reserves – coal, oil and gas – must remain in the ground. Ourgoal is for humans to live within the natural limits of our small planet.

4.decouple growth from fossil fuel use Starting in the developedcountries, economic growth must fully decouple from fossil fuels.It is a fallacy to suggest that economic growth must bepredicated on their increased combustion.

We need to use the energy we produce much more efficiently, and weneed to make the transition to renewable energy – away from fossilfuels – quickly in order to enable clean and sustainable growth.

5.phase out dirty, unsustainable energy We need to phase out coaland nuclear power. We cannot continue to build coal plants at a timewhen emissions pose a real and present danger to both ecosystemsand people. And we cannot continue to fuel the myriad nuclear threatsby pretending nuclear power can in any way help to combat climatechange. There is no role for nuclear power in the Energy [R]evolution.

from principles to practice

In 2005, renewable energy sources accounted for 13% of theworld’s primary energy demand. Biomass, which is mostly used forheating, is the main renewable energy source. The share ofrenewable energy in electricity generation was 18%. Thecontribution of renewables to primary energy demand for heatsupply was around 24%. About 80% of primary energy supplytoday still comes from fossil fuels, and 6% from nuclear power14.

The time is right to make substantial structural changes in theenergy and power sector within the next decade. Many power plantsin industrialised countries, such as the USA, Japan and theEuropean Union, are nearing retirement; more than half of alloperating power plants are over 20 years old. At the same timedeveloping countries, such as China, India and Brazil, are looking tosatisfy the growing energy demand created by expanding economies.

4

the en

ergy [r]evo

lutio

n|

KE

Y P

RIN

CIP

LE

S - F

RO

M P

RIN

CIP

LE

S T

O P

RA

CT

ISE

“THE STONE AGE DID NOT END FOR LACK OF STONE, AND THE OIL

AGE WILL END LONG BEFORE THE WORLD RUNS OUT OF OIL.”

Sheikh Zaki Yamani, former Saudi Arabian oil minister

references14 ‘ENERGY BALANCE OF NON-OECD COUNTRIES’ AND ‘ENERGY BALANCE OF OECDCOUNTRIES’, IEA, 2007

© O

WE

/GP

image ICE AND WATER IN THE NORTH POLE.GREENPEACE EXPLORERS, LONNIE DUPRE AND ERICLARSEN MAKE HISTORY AS THEY BECOME THE FIRST-EVER TO COMPLETE A TREK TO THE NORTH POLE INSUMMER. THE DUO UNDERTAKE THE EXPEDITION TOBRING ATTENTION TO THE PLIGHT OF THE POLAR BEARWHICH SCIENTISTS CLAIM COULD BE EXTINCT AS EARLYAS 2050 DUE TO THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING.

30

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

Within the next ten years, the power sector will decide how this newdemand will be met, either by fossil and nuclear fuels or by theefficient use of renewable energy. The Energy [R]evolution Scenariois based on a new political framework in favour of renewableenergy and cogeneration combined with energy efficiency.

To make this happen both renewable energy and cogeneration – ona large scale and through decentralised, smaller units – have togrow faster than overall global energy demand. Both approachesmust replace old generating technologies and deliver the additionalenergy required in the developing world.

As it is not possible to switch directly from the current large scale fossiland nuclear fuel based energy system to a full renewable energy supply,a transition phase is required to build up the necessary infrastructure.Whilst remaining firmly committed to the promotion of renewablesources of energy, we appreciate that gas, used in appropriately scaledcogeneration plant, is valuable as a transition fuel, and able to drivecost-effective decentralisation of the energy infrastructure. With warmersummers, tri-generation, which incorporates heat-fired absorptionchillers to deliver cooling capacity in addition to heat and power, willbecome a particularly valuable means to achieve emissions reductions.

a development pathway

The Energy [R]evolution envisages a development pathway whichturns the present energy supply structure into a sustainable system.There are two main stages to this.

step 1: energy efficiency The Energy [R]evolution is aimed at theambitious exploitation of the potential for energy efficiency. Itfocuses on current best practice and technologies which willbecome available in the future, assuming continuous innovation. Theenergy savings are fairly equally distributed over the three sectors –industry, transport and domestic/business. Intelligent use, notabstinence, is the basic philosophy for future energy conservation.

The most important energy saving options are improved heatinsulation and building design, super efficient electrical machines anddrives, replacement of old style electrical heating systems byrenewable heat production (such as solar collectors) and a reductionin energy consumption by vehicles used for goods and passengertraffic. Industrialised countries, which currently use energy in the mostinefficient way, can reduce their consumption drastically without theloss of either housing comfort or information and entertainmentelectronics. The Energy [R]evolution Scenario uses energy saved inOECD countries as a compensation for the increasing powerrequirements in developing countries. The ultimate goal is stabilisationof global energy consumption within the next two decades. At thesame time the aim is to create “energy equity” – shifting the currentone-sided waste of energy in the industrialised countries towards afairer worldwide distribution of efficiently used supply.

A dramatic reduction in primary energy demand compared to theIEA’s “Reference Scenario” (see Chapter 6) – but with the sameGDP and population development - is a crucial prerequisite forachieving a significant share of renewable energy sources in theoverall energy supply system, compensating for the phasing out ofnuclear energy and reducing the consumption of fossil fuels.

step 2: structural changes

decentralised energy and large scale renewables In order toachieve higher fuel efficiencies and reduce distribution losses, theEnergy [R]evolution Scenario makes extensive use of DecentralisedEnergy (DE).This is energy generated at or near the point of use.

DE is connected to a local distribution network system, supplyinghomes and offices, rather than the high voltage transmissionsystem. The proximity of electricity generating plant to consumersallows any waste heat from combustion processes to be piped tobuildings nearby, a system known as cogeneration or combined heatand power. This means that nearly all the input energy is put to use,not just a fraction as with traditional centralised fossil fuel plant.

DE also includes stand-alone systems entirely separate from thepublic networks, for example heat pumps, solar thermal panels orbiomass heating. These can all be commercialised at a domesticlevel to provide sustainable low emission heating. Although DEtechnologies can be considered ‘disruptive’ because they do not fitthe existing electricity market and system, with appropriate changesthey have the potential for exponential growth, promising ‘creativedestruction’ of the existing energy sector.

A huge proportion of global energy in 2050 will be produced bydecentralised energy sources, although large scale renewable energysupply will still be needed in order to achieve a fast transition to arenewables dominated system. Large offshore wind farms andconcentrating solar power (CSP) plants in the sunbelt regions ofthe world will therefore have an important role to play.

cogeneration The increased use of combined heat and powergeneration (CHP) will improve the supply system’s energyconversion efficiency, whether using natural gas or biomass. In thelonger term, decreasing demand for heat and the large potential forproducing heat directly from renewable energy sources will limit thefurther expansion of CHP.

renewable electricity The electricity sector will be the pioneer ofrenewable energy utilisation. All renewable electricity technologieshave been experiencing steady growth over the past 20 to 30 yearsof up to 35% annually and are expected to consolidate at a highlevel between 2030 and 2050. By 2050, the majority of electricitywill be produced from renewable energy sources. Expected growthof electricity use in transport will further promote the effective useof renewable power generation technologies.

renewable heating In the heat supply sector, the contribution ofrenewables will increase significantly. Growth rates are expected tobe similar to those of the renewable electricity sector. Fossil fuelswill be increasingly replaced by more efficient modern technologies,in particular biomass, solar collectors and geothermal. By 2050,renewable energy technologies will satisfy the major part of heatingand cooling demand.

4

the en

ergy [r]evo

lutio

n|

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T P

AT

HW

AY

31

transport Before new technologies such as hybrid or electric carsor new fuels such as bio fuels can play a substantial role in thetransport sector, the existing large efficiency potentials have to beexploited. In this study, biomass is primarily committed tostationary applications; the use of bio fuels for transport is limitedby the availability of sustainably grown biomass15. Electric vehicleswill therefore play an even more important role in improving energyefficiency in transport and substituting for fossil fuels.

Overall, to achieve an economically attractive growth in renewableenergy sources, a balanced and timely mobilisation of alltechnologies is essential. Such a mobilisation depends on theresource availability, cost reduction potential and technologicalmaturity. Besides technology driven solutions, lifestyle changes -like simply driving less and using more public transport – have ahuge potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

4

the en

ergy [r]evo

lutio

n|

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T P

AT

HW

AY

1. PHOTOVOLTAIC, SOLAR FASCADE WILL BE A DECORATIVEELEMENT ON OFFICE AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS.PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS WILL BECOME MORE COMPETITIVEAND IMPROVED DESIGN WILL ENABLE ARCHITECTS TO USETHEM MORE WIDELY.

2. RENOVATION CAN CUT ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF OLD BUILDINGSBY AS MUCH AS 80% - WITH IMPROVED HEAT INSULATION,INSULATED WINDOWS AND MODERN VENTILATION SYSTEMS.

3. SOLAR THERMAL COLLECTORS PRODUCE HOT WATER FOR BOTHTHEIR OWN AND NEIGHBOURING BUILDINGS.

4. EFFICIENT THERMAL POWER (CHP) STATIONS WILL COME IN AVARIETY OF SIZES - FITTING THE CELLAR OF A DETACHEDHOUSE OR SUPPLYING WHOLE BUILDING COMPLEXES ORAPARTMENT BLOCKS WITH POWER AND WARMTH WITHOUTLOSSES IN TRANSMISSION.

5. CLEAN ELECTRICITY FOR THE CITIES WILL ALSO COME FROMFARTHER AFIELD. OFFSHORE WIND PARKS AND SOLAR POWERSTATIONS IN DESERTS HAVE ENORMOUS POTENTIAL.

city

figure 4.1: a decentralised energy futureEXISTING TECHNOLOGIES, APPLIED IN A DECENTRALISED WAY AND COMBINED WITH EFFICIENCY MEASURES AND ZERO EMISSION DEVELOPMENTS, CAN

DELIVER LOW CARBON COMMUNITIES AS ILLUSTRATED HERE. POWER IS GENERATED USING EFFICIENT COGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES PRODUCING BOTH HEAT

(AND SOMETIMES COOLING) PLUS ELECTRICITY, DISTRIBUTED VIA LOCAL NETWORKS. THIS SUPPLEMENTS THE ENERGY PRODUCED FROM BUILDING INTEGRATED

GENERATION. ENERGY SOLUTIONS COME FROM LOCAL OPPORTUNITIES AT BOTH A SMALL AND COMMUNITY SCALE. THE TOWN SHOWN HERE MAKES USE OF –

AMONG OTHERS – WIND, BIOMASS AND HYDRO RESOURCES. NATURAL GAS, WHERE NEEDED, CAN BE DEPLOYED IN A HIGHLY EFFICIENT MANNER.

© D

RE

AM

STIM

E

references15 SEE CHAPTER 13

© L

AN

GR

OCK

/ZE

NIT

/GP

image A COW INFRONT OF ABIOREACTOR IN THE BIOENERGYVILLAGE OF JUEHNDE. IT IS THE FIRSTCOMMUNITY IN GERMANY THATPRODUCES ALL OF ITS ENERGY NEEDEDFOR HEATING AND ELECTRICITY, WITHCO2 NEUTRAL BIOMASS.

32

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

optimised integration of renewable energy

Modification of the energy system will be necessary toaccommodate the significantly higher shares of renewable energyexpected under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario. This is not unlikewhat happened in the 1970s and 1980s, when most of thecentralised power plants now operating were constructed in OECDcountries. New high voltage power lines were built, night storageheaters marketed and large electric-powered hot water boilersinstalled in order to sell the electricity produced by nuclear andcoal-fired plants at night.

Several OECD countries have demonstrated that it is possible tosmoothly integrate a large proportion of decentralised energy,including variable sources such as wind. A good example isDenmark, which has the highest percentage of combined heat andpower generation and wind power in Europe. With strong politicalsupport, 50% of electricity and 80% of district heat is nowsupplied by cogeneration plants. The contribution of wind power hasreached more than 18% of Danish electricity demand. At certaintimes, electricity generation from cogeneration and wind turbineseven exceeds demand. The load compensation required for gridstability in Denmark is managed both through regulating thecapacity of the few large power stations and through import andexport to neighbouring countries. A three tier tariff system enablesbalancing of power generation from the decentralised power plantswith electricity consumption on a daily basis.

It is important to optimise the energy system as a whole throughintelligent management by both producers and consumers, by anappropriate mix of power stations and through new systems forstoring electricity.

appropriate power station mix: The power supply in OECDcountries is mostly generated by coal and – in some cases – nuclearpower stations, which are difficult to regulate. Modern gas powerstations, by contrast, are not only highly efficient but easier andfaster to regulate and thus better able to compensate forfluctuating loads. Coal and nuclear power stations have lower fueland operating costs but comparably high investment costs. Theymust therefore run round-the-clock as ‘base load’ in order to earnback their investment. Gas power stations have lower investmentcosts and are profitable even at low output, making them bettersuited to balancing out the variations in supply from renewableenergy sources.

load management: The level and timing of demand for electricitycan be managed by providing consumers with financial incentives toreduce or shut off their supply at periods of peak consumption.Control technology can be used to manage the arrangement. Thissystem is already used for some large industrial customers. ANorwegian power supplier even involves private household customersby sending them a text message with a signal to shut down. Eachhousehold can decide in advance whether or not they want toparticipate. In Germany, experiments are being conducted with timeflexible tariffs so that washing machines operate at night andrefrigerators turn off temporarily during periods of high demand.

This type of load management has been simplified by advances incommunications technology. In Italy, for example, 30 millioninnovative electricity counters have been installed to allow remotemeter reading and control of consumer and service information.Many household electrical products or systems, such asrefrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, storage heaters, waterpumps and air conditioning, can be managed either by temporaryshut-off or by rescheduling their time of operation, thus freeing upelectricity load for other uses.

4

the en

ergy [r]evo

lutio

n|

OP

TIM

ISE

D IN

TE

GR

AT

ION

OF

RE

NE

WA

BL

E E

NE

RG

Y

© D

RE

AM

STIM

E

figure 4.2: centralised energy infrastructures waste more than two thirds of their energy

© D

RE

AM

STIM

E

100 units >>ENERGY WITHIN FOSSIL FUEL

61.5 units LOST THROUGH INEFFICIENT

GENERATION AND HEAT WASTAGE

3.5 units LOST THROUGH TRANSMISSION

AND DISTRIBUTION

13 units WASTED THROUGH

INEFFICIENT END USE

38.5 units >>OF ENERGY FED TO NATIONAL GRID

35 units >>OF ENERGY SUPPLIED

22 unitsOF ENERGY

ACTUALLY UTILISED

33

generation management: Renewable electricity generationsystems can also be involved in load optimisation. Wind farms, forexample, can be temporarily switched off when too much power isavailable on the network.

energy storage: Another method of balancing out electricity supplyand demand is through intermediate storage. This storage can bedecentralised, for example by the use of batteries, or centralised. Sofar, pumped storage hydropower stations have been the mainmethod of storing large amounts of electric power. In a pumpedstorage system, energy from power generation is stored in a lakeand then allowed to flow back when required, driving turbines andgenerating electricity. 280 such pumped storage plants existworldwide. They already provide an important contribution tosecurity of supply, but their operation could be better adjusted tothe requirements of a future renewable energy system.

In the long term, other storage solutions are beginning to emerge.One promising solution besides the use of hydrogen is the use ofcompressed air. In these systems, electricity is used to compress airinto deep salt domes 600 metres underground and at pressures ofup to 70 bar. At peak times, when electricity demand is high, the airis allowed to flow back out of the cavern and drive a turbine.Although this system, known as CAES (Compressed Air EnergyStorage) currently still requires fossil fuel auxiliary power, a so-called “adiabatic” plant is being developed which does not. Toachieve this, the heat from the compressed air is intermediatelystored in a giant heat store. Such a power station can achieve astorage efficiency of 70%.

The forecasting of renewable electricity generation is alsocontinually improving. Regulating supply is particularly expensivewhen it has to be found at short notice. However, predictiontechniques for wind power generation have become considerablymore accurate in recent years and are still being improved. Thedemand for balancing supply will therefore decrease in the future.

the “virtual power station” 16

The rapid development of information technologies is helping topave the way for a decentralised energy supply based oncogeneration plants, renewable energy systems and conventionalpower stations. Manufacturers of small cogeneration plants alreadyoffer internet interfaces which enable remote control of the system.It is now possible for individual householders to control theirelectricity and heat usage so that expensive electricity drawn fromthe grid can be minimised – and the electricity demand profile issmoothed. This is part of the trend towards the ‘smart house’ whereits mini cogeneration plant becomes an energy management centre.We can go one step further than this with a ‘virtual power station’.Virtual does not mean that the power station does not produce realelectricity. It refers to the fact that there is no large, spatiallylocated power station with turbines and generators. The hub of thevirtual power station is a control unit which processes data frommany decentralised power stations, compares them with predictionsof power demand, generation and weather conditions, retrieves theavailable power market prices and then intelligently optimises theoverall power station activity. Some public utilities already use suchsystems, integrating cogeneration plants, wind farms, photovoltaicsystems and other power plants. The virtual power station can alsolink consumers into the management process.

4

the en

ergy [r]evo

lutio

n|

TH

E “

VIR

TU

AL

PO

WE

R S

TA

TIO

N”

“it is important to optimise the energysystem as a whole through intelligentmanagement by both producers and consumers...”

references16 ‘RENEWABLE ENERGIES - INNOVATIONS FOR THE FUTURE’, GERMAN MINISTRY FORTHE ENVIRONMENT, NATURE CONSERVATION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY (BMU), 2006

A©

GP

/SIM

AN

JUN

TAK

image GREENPEACE DONATES A SOLAR POWERSYSTEM TO A COASTAL VILLAGE IN ACEH, INDONESIA,ONE OF THE WORST HIT AREAS BY THE TSUNAMI INDECEMBER 2004. IN COOPERATION WITH UPLINK, ALOCAL DEVELOPMENT NGO, GREENPEACE OFFERED ITSEXPERTISE ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLEENERGY AND INSTALLED RENEWABLE ENERGYGENERATORS FOR ONE OF THE BADLY HIT VILLAGES BY THE TSUNAMI.

34

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

future power grids

The power grid network must also change in order to realisedecentralised structures with a high share of renewable energy.Today’s grids are designed to transport power from a fewcentralised power stations out to the passive consumers. A futuresystem must enable an active integration of consumers anddecentralised power generators and thus realise real time two-waypower and information flows. Large power stations will feedelectricity into the high voltage grid but small decentralised systemssuch as solar, cogeneration and wind plants will deliver their powerinto the low or medium voltage grid. In order to transportelectricity from renewable generation such as offshore wind farmsin remote areas (see box), a limited number of new high voltagetransmission lines will need to be constructed. These power lines willalso be available for cross-border power trade. Within the Energy[R]evolution Scenario, the share of variable renewable energysources is expected to reach about 10% of total electricitygeneration by 2020 and about 35% by 2050.

A new Greenpeace report shows how a regionally integratedapproach to the large-scale development of offshore wind in theNorth Sea could deliver reliable clean energy for millions of homes.The ‘North Sea Electricity Grid [R]evolution’ report (September2008) calls for the creation of an offshore network to enable thesmooth flow of electricity generated from renewable energy sourcesinto the power systems of seven different countries - the UnitedKingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmarkand Norway – at the same time enabling significant emissionssavings. The cost of developing the grid is expected to be between€15 and 20 billion. This investment would not only allow the broadintegration of renewable energy but also unlock unprecedentedpower trading opportunities and cost efficiency. In a recentexample, a new 600 kilometre-long power line between Norway andthe Netherlands cost €600 million to build, but is alreadygenerating a daily cross-border trade valued at €800,000.

The grid would enable the efficient integration of renewable energyinto the power system across the whole North Sea region. Byaggregating power generation from wind farms spread across thewhole area, periods of very low or very high power flows would bereduced to a negligible amount. A dip in wind power generation inone area would be ‘balanced’ by higher production in another area,even hundreds of kilometres away. Over a year, an installed offshorewind power capacity of 68.4 GW in the North Sea would be able togenerate an estimated 247 TWh of electricity.

An offshore grid in the North Sea would also allow, for example, theimport of electricity from hydro power generation in Norway to theBritish and UCTE (Central European) network. This could replacethermal baseload plants and increase flexibility within a portfolio. Inaddition, increased liquidity and trading facilities on the Europeanpower markets will allow for a more efficient portfolio management.The value of such an offshore therefore lies in its contribution toincreased security of supply, its function in aggregating the dispatchof power from offshore wind farms and its role as a facilitator forpower exchange and trade between regions and power systems.

4

the en

ergy [r]evo

lutio

n|

FU

TU

RE

PO

WE

R G

RID

S

case 1: a north sea electricity grid

“a future system must enable an activeintegration of consumers anddecentralised power generators...”

35

4

the

energ

y[r]evo

lutio

n|FUTUREPOWERGRIDS

UNITED KINGDOM

BELGIUM

NETHERLANDS

GERMANY

NORWAY

DENMARK

FRANCE

north sea

0 50 10025KILOMETERS

figure 4.3: offshore grid topology proposal and offshore wind power installed capacity scenario

[MW] [TWh]BELGIUM 3,850 13.1DENMARK 1,580 5.6FRANCE 1,000 3.4GERMANY 26,420 97.5UNITED KINGDOM 22,240 80.8NETHERLANDS 12,040 41.7NORWAY 1,290 4.9TOTAL 68,420 247

INSTALLED ANDPLANNED CAPACITY[MW]

GRID: PROPOSED ORDISCUSSED IN THEPUBLIC DOMAIN

GRID: IN OPERATION ORPLANNING

PRINCIPLE HVDCSUBSTATIONS

WIND FARMS:INSTALLED PLANNEDCAPACITY < 1000 MW

WIND FARMS:INSTALLED PLANNEDCAPACITY > 1000 MW

LEGEND

Wind energy is booming in theEU. In 2007 alone, no less than8550MW of wind turbines wereinstalled in the EU, which is40% of all newly-installedcapacity. By 2020–2030, offshorewind energy in the North Seacould grow to 68,000MW andsupply 13 per cent of all currentelectricity production of sevenNorth Sea countries. In order tointegrate the electricity from theoffshore wind farms, an offshoregrid will be required. Greenpeacedemands that the governmentsof these seven countries and theEuropean Commission cooperateto make this happen.

www.greenpeace.be

* MAP IS INDICATIVE. NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF LOCATIONS AND SITING OF WINDFARMS AND CABLES HAS BEEN DONE.

©LANGROCK/ZENIT/GP

©LANGROCK/ZENIT/GP

image OFFSHORE WINDFARM,MIDDELGRUNDEN, COPENHAGEN,DENMARK.

image CONSTRUCTION OFWIND TURBINES.

© G

P/M

AR

KE

L R

ED

ON

DO

image THE PS10 CONCENTRATING SOLAR TOWER PLANT USES 624 LARGE MOVABLE MIRRORS CALLED HELIOSTATS. THE MIRRORS CONCENTRATE THE SUN’S RAYS TO THE TOP OF A 115METER (377 FOOT) HIGH TOWER WHERE A SOLAR RECEIVER AND A STEAM TURBINE ARE LOCATED. THE TURBINE DRIVES A GENERATOR, PRODUCING ELECTRICITY, SEVILLA, SPAIN.

36

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

Improving health and reducing death rates will not happen withoutenergy for the refrigeration needed for clinics, hospitals and vaccinationcampaigns. The world’s greatest child killer, acute respiratory infection,will not be tackled without dealing with smoke from cooking fires in thehome. Children will not study at night without light in their homes. Cleanwater will not be pumped or treated without energy.

The UN Commission on Sustainable Development argues that “toimplement the goal accepted by the international community ofhalving the proportion of people living on less than US $1 per dayby 2015, access to affordable energy services is a prerequisite”.

the role of sustainable, clean renewable energy

To achieve the dramatic emissions cuts needed to avoid climatechange – in the order of 80% in OECD countries by 2050 – willrequire a massive uptake of renewable energy. The targets forrenewable energy must be greatly expanded in industrialisedcountries both to substitute for fossil fuel and nuclear generationand to create the necessary economies of scale necessary for globalexpansion. Within the Energy [R]evolution Scenario we assume thatmodern renewable energy sources, such as solar collectors, solarcookers and modern forms of bio energy, will replace inefficient,traditional biomass use.

4

the en

ergy [r]evo

lutio

n|

RU

RA

L E

LE

CT

RIF

ICA

TIO

N - R

OL

E

rural electrification17

Energy is central to reducing poverty, providing major benefits inthe areas of health, literacy and equity. More than a quarter of theworld’s population has no access to modern energy services. In sub-Saharan Africa, 80% of people have no electricity supply. Forcooking and heating, they depend almost exclusively on burningbiomass – wood, charcoal and dung.

Poor people spend up to a third of their income on energy, mostlyto cook food. Women in particular devote a considerable amount oftime to collecting, processing and using traditional fuel for cooking.In India, two to seven hours each day can be devoted to thecollection of cooking fuel. This is time that could be spent on childcare, education or income generation. The World HealthOrganisation estimates that 2.5 million women and young childrenin developing countries die prematurely each year from breathingthe fumes from indoor biomass stoves.

The Millennium Development Goal of halving global poverty by 2015 willnot be reached without adequate energy to increase production, incomeand education, create jobs and reduce the daily grind involved in having tojust survive. Halving hunger will not come about without energy for moreproductive growing, harvesting, processing and marketing of food.

scenario principles in a nutshell

• Smart consumption, generation and distribution

• Energy production moves closer to the consumer

• Maximum use of locally available, environmentally friendly fuels

references17 ‘SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FOR POVERTY REDUCTION: AN ACTION PLAN’, ITPOWER/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, 2002

37

5scenarios for a future energy supply

GLOBAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY STUDYTHE FUTURE FOR CARSTHE GLOBAL POTENTIAL FORSUSTAINABLE BIO ENERGYMAIN SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS

WORLD REGIONSECONOMIC GROWTHFOSSIL FUEL & BIOMASS PRICEPROJECTIONS

COST OF CO2 EMISSIONSPOWER PLANT INVESTMENT COSTS

“towards a sustainable globalenergy supply system.”GREENPEACE INTERNATIONALCLIMATE CAMPAIGN

5

image WIND TURBINE IN SAMUT SAKHON, THAILAND. ©

GP/VINAI DITHAJOHN

38

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

Moving from principles to action on energy supply and climatechange mitigation requires a long-term perspective. Energyinfrastructure takes time to build up; new energy technologies taketime to develop. Policy shifts often also need many years to have aneffect. Any analysis that seeks to tackle energy and environmentalissues therefore needs to look ahead at least half a century.

Scenarios are important in describing possible development paths,to give decision-makers an overview of future perspectives and toindicate how far they can shape the future energy system. Twodifferent scenarios are used here to characterise the wide range ofpossible paths for the future energy supply system: a ReferenceScenario, reflecting a continuation of current trends and policies,and the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, which is designed to achievea set of dedicated environmental policy targets.

The reference scenario is based on the Reference Scenariopublished by the International Energy Agency in World EnergyOutlook 2007 (WEO 2007)18. This only takes existing internationalenergy and environmental policies into account. The assumptionsinclude, for example, continuing progress in electricity and gasmarket reforms, the liberalisation of cross-border energy trade andrecent policies designed to combat environmental pollution. TheReference Scenario does not include additional policies to reducegreenhouse gas emissions. As the IEA’s scenario only covers a timehorizon up to 2030, it has been extended by extrapolating its keymacroeconomic indicators. This provides a baseline for comparisonwith the Energy [R]evolution Scenario.

The energy [r]evolution scenario has a key target for thereduction of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions down to a level ofaround 10 Gigatonnes per year by 2050 in order for the increase inglobal temperature to remain under +2°C. A second objective is theglobal phasing out of nuclear energy. To achieve these targets, thescenario is characterised by significant efforts to fully exploit thelarge potential for energy efficiency. At the same time, all cost-effective renewable energy sources are used for heat and electricitygeneration as well as the production of bio fuels. The generalframework parameters for population and GDP growth remainunchanged from the Reference Scenario.

These scenarios by no means claim to predict the future; theysimply describe two potential development paths out of the broadrange of possible ‘futures’. The Energy [R]evolution Scenario isdesigned to indicate the efforts and actions required to achieve itsambitious objectives and to illustrate the options we have at handto change our energy supply system into one that is sustainable.

scenario background The scenarios in this report were jointlycommissioned by Greenpeace and the European Renewable EnergyCouncil from the Institute of Technical Thermodynamics, part of theGerman Aerospace Center (DLR). The supply scenarios werecalculated using the MESAP/PlaNet simulation model used for theprevious Energy [R]evolution study19. Energy demand projectionswere developed by Ecofys Netherlands, based on an analysis of thefuture potential for energy efficiency measures. The biomasspotential, using Greenpeace sustainability criteria, has beendeveloped especially for this scenario by the German BiomassResearch Centre. The future development pathway for cartechnologies is based on a special report produced in 2008 by theInstitute of Vehicle Concepts, DLR for Greenpeace International.

energy efficiency study

The aim of the Ecofys study was to develop a low energy demandscenario for the period 2005 to 2050 for the IEA regions asdefined in the World Energy Outlook report series. Calculationswere made for each decade from 2010 onwards. Energy demandwas split up into electricity and fuels. The sectors which were takeninto account were industry, transport and other consumers,including households and services.

Under the low energy demand scenario, worldwide final energydemand is reduced by 38% in 2050 in comparison to the ReferenceScenario, resulting in a final energy demand of 350 EJ(ExaJoules). The energy savings are fairly equally distributed overthe three sectors of industry, transport and other uses. The mostimportant energy saving options are efficient passenger and freighttransport and improved heat insulation and building design. Chapter11 provides more details about this study.

5

scena

rios fo

r a fu

ture en

ergy su

pp

ly|

BA

CK

GR

OU

ND

“moving from principles to action..”

references18 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY, ‘WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2007’, 2007 19 ‘ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION: A SUSTAINABLE WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK’, GREENPEACEINTERNATIONAL, 2007

39

By 2050, 60% of the final energy used in transport will still comefrom fossil sources, mainly gasoline and diesel. Renewableelectricity will cover 25%, bio fuels 13% and hydrogen 2%. Totalenergy consumption in 2050 will be similar to the consumption in2005, however, in spite of enormous increases in fuel use in someregions of the world.

The peak in global CO2 emissions from transport occurs between2010 and 2015. From 2010 onwards, new legislation in the US andEurope will contribute to breaking the upwards trend in emissions.From 2020, the effect of introducing grid-connected electric cars canbe clearly seen. Chapter 13 provides more details about this report.

the global potential for sustainable bio energy

As part of the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, Greenpeacecommissioned the German Biomass Research Centre (the formerInstitute for Energy and Environment) to look at the worldwidepotential for energy crops up to 2050. A summary of this reportcan be found in Chapter 8.

5

scena

rios fo

r a fu

ture en

ergy su

pp

ly|

FU

TU

RE

OF

CA

RS

- GL

OB

AL

PO

TE

NT

IAL

the future for cars

The Institute of Vehicle Concepts in Stuttgart, Germany hasdeveloped a global scenario for cars covering ten world regions. Theaim was to produce a demanding but feasible scenario to lowerglobal car CO2 emissions within the context of the overall objectivesof this report. The approach takes into account a vast range oftechnical measures to reduce the energy consumption of vehicles,but also considers the dramatic increase in vehicle ownership andannual mileage taking place in developing countries. The majorparameters are vehicle technology, alternative fuels, changes insales of different vehicle sizes (segment split) and changes invehicle kilometres travelled (modal split).

The scenario assumes that a large share of renewable electricitywill be available in the future. A combination of ambitious effortstowards higher efficiency in vehicle technologies, a major switch togrid-connected electric vehicles and incentives for vehicle users tosave carbon dioxide lead to the conclusion that it is possible toreduce CO2 emissions from ‘well-to-wheel’ in 2050 by roughly25%20 compared to 1990 and 40% compared to 2005.

references20 THERE IS NO RELIABLE NUMBER AVAILABLE FOR GLOBAL LDV EMISSIONS IN 1990,SO A ROUGH ESTIMATE HAS BEEN MADE.

© D

RE

AM

STIM

E

image THE TECHNOLOGY FOR SOLARPANELS WAS ORIGINAL INSPIRED BY NATURE.

© G

P/S

IMA

NJU

NTA

K

image GREENPEACE DONATES A SOLAR POWER SYSTEM TO A COASTAL VILLAGE IN ACEH, INDONESIA, ONE OF THE WORST HIT AREAS BY THE TSUNAMI IN DECEMBER 2004.

40

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

main scenario assumptions

Development of a global energy scenario requires the use of a multi-region model in order to reflect the significant structural differencesbetween energy supply systems. The International Energy Agencybreakdown of world regions, as used in the ongoing series of WorldEnergy Outlook reports, has been chosen because the IEA alsoprovides the most comprehensive global energy statistics21.

The previous Energy [R]evolution Scenario used three regions to coverAsia: East Asia, South Asia and China. In line with WEO 2007, this newedition maintains the three region approach, but assesses China andIndia separately and aggregates the remaining Non-OECD countries inAsia under ‘Developing Asia’. The loss of comparability with the previousstudy is outweighed by the ability to compare the new results withcurrent IEA reports and still provides a reasonable analysis of Asia interms of population and economic development. The definitions of theworld regions are shown in Figure 5.1.

5

scena

rios fo

r a fu

ture en

ergy su

pp

ly|

MA

IN S

CE

NA

RIO

AS

SU

MP

TIO

NS

- WO

RL

D R

EG

ION

S

figure 5.1: definition of world regionsWEO 2007

oecd northamerica

Canada, Mexico, United States

latin america

Antigua and Barbuda,Argentina, Bahamas,Barbados, Belize,Bermuda, Bolivia,Brazil, Chile, Colombia,Costa Rica, Cuba,Dominica, DominicanRepublic, Ecuador, El Salvador, FrenchGuiana, Grenada,Guadeloupe,Guatemala, Guyana,Haiti, Honduras,Jamaica, Martinique,Netherlands Antilles,Nicaragua, Panama,Paraguay, Peru, St.Kitts-Nevis-Anguila,Saint Lucia, St. Vincentand Grenadines,Suriname, Trinidad andTobago, Uruguay,Venezuela

africa

Algeria, Angola, Benin,Botswana, BurkinaFaso, Burundi,Cameroon, Cape Verde,Central AfricanRepublic, Chad,Comoros, Congo,Democratic Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire,Djibouti, Egypt,Equatorial Guinea,Eritrea, Ethiopia,Gabon, Gambia, Ghana,Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia,Libya, Madagascar,Malawi, Mali,Mauritania, Mauritius,Morocco, Mozambique,Namibia, Niger, Nigeria,Reunion, Rwanda, SaoTome and Principe,Senegal, Seychelles,Sierra Leone, Somalia,South Africa, Sudan,Swaziland, UnitedRepublic of Tanzania,Togo, Tunisia, Uganda,Zambia, Zimbabwe

middle east

Bahrain, Iran, Iraq,Israel, Jordan, Kuwait,Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,Syria, United ArabEmirates, Yemen

india

India

transitioneconomies

Albania, Armenia,Azerbaijan, Belarus,Bosnia-Herzegovina,Bulgaria, Croatia,Estonia, Serbia andMontenegro, the formerRepublic of Macedonia,Georgia, Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,Lithuania, Moldova,Romania, Russia,Slovenia, Tajikistan,Turkmenistan, Ukraine,Uzbekistan, Cyprus* ,Malta*

oecd pacific

Australia, Japan, Korea(South), New Zealand

china

People’s Republic of China including Hong Kong

developing asia

Afghanistan,Bangladesh, Bhutan,Brunei, Cambodia,Chinese Taipei, Fiji,French Polynesia,Indonesia, Kiribati,Democratic People’sRepublic of Korea,Laos, Macao, Malaysia,Maldives, Mongolia,Myanmar, Nepal, NewCaledonia, Pakistan,Papua New Guinea,Philippines, Samoa,Singapore, SolomonIslands, Sri Lanka,Thailand, Vietnam,Vanuatu

oecd europe

Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic,Denmark, Finland,France, Germany,Greece, Hungary,Iceland, Ireland, Italy,Luxembourg,Netherlands, Norway,Poland, Portugal,Slovak Republic, Spain,Sweden, Switzerland,Turkey, United Kingdom

* CYPRUS AND MALTA ARE ALLOCATED TO THE TRANSITION ECONOMIES FOR STATISTICAL REASONS

41

1. population development

One important underlying factor in energy scenario building isfuture population development. Population growth affects the sizeand composition of energy demand, directly and through its impacton economic growth and development. World Energy Outlook 2007uses the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)projections for population development. For this study the mostrecent population projections from UNDP up to 2050 are applied22.

Table 5.1 summarises this study’s assumptions on world populationdevelopment. The world’s population is expected to grow by 0.77 % onaverage over the period 2005 to 2050, from 6.5 billion people in 2005 tomore than 9.1 billion in 2050. Population growth will slow over theprojection period, from 1.2% during 2005-2010 to 0.4% during 2040-2050. However, the updated projections show an increase in population ofalmost 300 million compared to the previous edition. This will furtherincrease the demand for energy. The population of the developing regionswill continue to grow most rapidly. The Transition Economies will face acontinuous decline, followed after a short while by the OECD Pacificcountries. OECD Europe and OECD North America are expected tomaintain their population, with a peak in around 2020/2030 and a slightdecline afterwards. The share of the population living in today’s Non-OECD countries will increase from the current 82% to 86% in 2050.China’s contribution to world population will drop from 20% today to15% in 2050. Africa will remain the region with the highest growth rate,leading to a share of 21% of world population in 2050.

Satisfying the energy needs of a growing population in the developingregions of the world in an environmentally friendly manner is a keychallenge for achieving a global sustainable energy supply.

2. economic growth

Economic growth is a key driver for energy demand. Since 1971, each1% increase in global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has beenaccompanied by a 0.6% increase in primary energy consumption. Thedecoupling of energy demand and GDP growth is therefore a prerequisitefor reducing demand in the future. Most global energy/economic/environmental models constructed in the past have relied on marketexchange rates to place countries in a common currency for estimationand calibration. This approach has been the subject of considerablediscussion in recent years, and the alternative of purchasing power parity(PPP) exchange rates has been proposed. Purchasing power paritiescompare the costs in different currencies of a fixed basket of traded andnon-traded goods and services and yield a widely-based measure of thestandard of living. This is important in analysing the main drivers ofenergy demand or for comparing energy intensities among countries.

Although PPP assessments are still relatively imprecise compared tostatistics based on national income and product trade and nationalprice indexes, they are considered to provide a better basis for globalscenario development.23 Thus all data on economic development inWEO 2007 refers to purchasing power adjusted GDP. However, asWEO 2007 only covers the time period up to 2030, the projectionsfor 2030-2050 are based on our own estimates.

Prospects for GDP growth have increased considerably compared tothe previous study, whilst underlying growth trends continue much thesame. GDP growth in all regions is expected to slow gradually over thecoming decades. World GDP is assumed to grow on average by 3.6%per year over the period 2005-2030, compared to 3.3% from 1971 to2002, and on average by 3.3 % per year over the entire modellingperiod. China and India are expected to grow faster than otherregions, followed by the Developing Asia countries, Africa and theTransition Economies. The Chinese economy will slow as it becomesmore mature, but will nonetheless become the largest in the world inPPP terms early in the 2020s. GDP in OECD Europe and OECDPacific is assumed to grow by around 2% per year over the projectionperiod, while economic growth in OECD North America is expected tobe slightly higher. The OECD share of global PPP-adjusted GDP willdecrease from 55% in 2005 to 29% in 2050.

5

scena

rios fo

r a fu

ture en

ergy su

pp

ly|

MA

IN S

CE

NA

RIO

AS

SU

MP

TIO

NS

table 5.1: GDP development projections(AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATES)

source (2005-2030, IEA 2007; 2030-2050, OWN ASSUMPTIONS)

2005 -2010

4.6%

2.6%

2.7%

2.5%

5.6%

8.0%

9.2%

5.1%

4.3%

5.0%

5.1%

2010 -2020

3.6%

2.1%

2.4%

1.8%

3.6%

6.2%

5.7%

3.8%

3.2%

3.9%

4.2%

2020 -2030

3.2%

1.7%

2.2%

1.5%

2.7%

5.7%

4.7%

3.1%

2.8%

3.5%

3.2%

2030 -2040

3.0%

1.3%

2.0%

1.3%

2.5%

5.4%

4.2%

2.7%

2.6%

3.2%

2.9%

2040 -2050

2.9%

1.1%

1.8%

1.2%

2.4%

5.0%

3.6%

2.4%

2.4%

3.0%

2.6%

2005 -2050

3.3%

1.7%

2.2%

1.6%

3.1%

5.8%

5.0%

3.2%

2.9%

3.6%

3.4%

REGION

World

OECD Europe

OECD North America

OECD Pacific

Transition Economies

India

China

Developing Asia

Latin America

Africa

Middle East

figure 5.2: relative GDPppp growth by world regions

2005 2010 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050

•WORLD

• OECD EUROPE

• OECD NORTH AMERICA

• OECD PACIFIC

•TRANSITION ECONOMIES

• CHINA

• INDIA

• DEVELOPING ASIA

• LATIN AMERICA

• AFRICA

•MIDDLE EAST

1,3001,2001,1001,000

900800700600500400300200

% 100

references21 ‘ENERGY BALANCE OF NON-OECD COUNTRIES’ AND ‘ENERGY BALANCE OF OECDCOUNTRIES’, IEA, 200722 ‘WORLD POPULATION PROSPECTS: THE 2006 REVISION’, UNITED NATIONS,POPULATION DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS (UNDP), 200723 NORDHAUS, W, ‘ALTERNATIVE MEASURES OF OUTPUT IN GLOBAL ECONOMIC-ENVIRONMENTAL MODELS: PURCHASING POWER PARITY OR MARKET EXCHANGERATES?’, REPORT PREPARED FOR IPCC EXPERT MEETING ON EMISSION SCENARIOS, US-EPA WASHINGTON DC, JANUARY 12-14, 2005

© G

P/F

LA

VIO

CA

NN

AL

ON

GA

image GROUP OF YOUNG PEOPLETOUCHING SOLAR PANELS IN BRAZIL.

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

3. fossil fuel and biomass price projections

The recent dramatic increase in global oil prices has resulted in muchhigher forward price projections for fossil fuels. Under the 2004 ‘highoil and gas price’ scenario from the European Commission, forexample, an oil price of just $34 per barrel was assumed in 2030.More recent projections of oil prices in 2030 range from the IEA’s$200662/bbl ($200560/bbl) (WEO 2007) up to $2006119/bbl($2005115/bbl) in the ‘high price’ scenario of the US EnergyInformation Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2008.

Since the last Energy [R]evolution study was published, however,the price of oil has moved over $100/bbl for the first time (at theend of 2007), and in July 2008 reached a record high of more than$140/bbl. Although oil prices fell back to $100/bbl in September2008, the above projections might still be considered tooconservative. Considering the growing global demand for oil and gaswe have assumed a price development path for fossil fuels in whichthe price of oil reaches $120/bbl by 2030 and $140/bbl in 2050.

As the supply of natural gas is limited by the availability of pipelineinfrastructure, there is no world market price for natural gas. Inmost regions of the world the gas price is directly tied to the priceof oil. Gas prices are assumed to increase to $20-25/GJ by 2050.

4. cost of CO2 emissions

Assuming that a CO2 emissions trading system is established in all worldregions in the long term, the cost of CO2 allowances needs to be includedin the calculation of electricity generation costs. Projections of emissionscosts are even more uncertain than energy prices, and available studiesspan a broad range of future CO2 cost estimates. As in the previousEnergy [R]evolution study we assume CO2 costs of $10/tCO2 in 2010,rising to $50/tCO2 in 2050. Additional CO2 costs are applied in KyotoProtocol Non-Annex B (developing) countries only after 2020.

5

scena

rios fo

r a fu

ture en

ergy su

pp

ly|

MA

IN S

CE

NA

RIO

AS

SU

MP

TIO

NS

table 5.3: assumptions on CO2 emissions cost development($/tCO2)

2010

10

2020

20

20

2030

30

30

2040

40

40

2050

50

50

COUNTRIES

Kyoto Annex B countries

Non-Annex B countries

• OECD EUROPE

• OECD NORTH AMERICA

• OECD PACIFIC

•TRANSITION ECONOMIES

• INDIA

• CHINA

•DEVELOPING ASIA

• LATIN AMERICA

• AFRICA

•MIDDLE EAST

figure 5.3: development of world GDPppp by regions

2050

2005

table 5.2: assumptions on fuel price development

2005

52.5

2000

4.593.345.61

2000

37.8

2005

7.53

2.5

2006

60.1

2005

5.75.85.6

2005

2007

71.2

2006

7.387.477.17

2006

60.9

2010

57.271.776.6100

7.526.757.48

11.510.011.5

54.3142.7

7.93.32.8

2015

55.5

105

7.526.787.49

12.711.412.6

55.1167.2

8.53.53.2

2020

57.999.1110

14.713.314.7

194.4

9.43.83.5

2030

60.168.3

115.0120

8.067.498.01

18.417.218.3

59.3251.4

10.34.34.0

2040

130

21.920.621.9

311.2

10.64.74.6

2050

63

140

8.187.678.18

24.623.024.6

59.3359.1

10.85.24.9

Crude oil import prices in $2005 per barrel IEA WEO 2007 ETP 2008US EIA 2008 ‘Reference’US EIA 2008 ‘High Price’Energy [R]evolution 2008

Gas import prices in $2005 per GJ IEA WEO 2007/ ETP 2008

US importsEuropean importsJapan imports

Energy [R]evolution 2008US importsEuropean importsAsia imports

Hard coal import prices in $2005 per tonneIEA WEO 2007/ ETP 2008Energy [R]evolution 2008

Biomass (solid) prices in $2005 per GJEnergy [R]evolution 2008

OECD EuropeOECD Pacific, NAOther regions

42

43

5. power plant investment costs

fossil fuel technologies and carbon capture and storage (CCS)While the fossil fuel power technologies in use today for coal, gas,lignite and oil are established and at an advanced stage of marketdevelopment, further cost reduction potentials are assumed. Thepotential for cost reductions is limited, however, and will beachieved mainly through an increase in efficiency, bringing downinvestment costs24.

There is much speculation about the potential for carbon captureand storage (CCS) technology to mitigate the effect of fossil fuelconsumption on climate change, even though the technology is stillunder development.

CCS is a means of trapping CO2 from fossil fuels, either before orafter they are burned, and ‘storing’ (effectively disposing of) it inthe sea or beneath the surface of the Earth. There are currentlythree different methods of capturing CO2: ‘pre-combustion’, ‘post-combustion’ and ‘oxyfuel combustion’. However, development is at avery early stage and CCS will not be implemented - in the best case- before 2020 and will probably not become commercially viable asa possible effective mitigation option until 2030.

Cost estimates for CCS vary considerably, depending on factorssuch as power station configuration, technology, fuel costs, size ofproject and location. One thing is certain, however, CCS isexpensive. It requires significant funds to construct the powerstations and the necessary infrastructure to transport and storecarbon. The IPCC assesses costs at $15-75 per ton of capturedCO2

25, while a recent US Department of Energy report foundinstalling carbon capture systems to most modern plants resulted ina near doubling of costs26. These costs are estimated to increase theprice of electricity in a range from 21-91%27.

Pipeline networks will also need to be constructed to move CO2 tostorage sites. This is likely to require a considerable outlay ofcapital28. Costs will vary depending on a number of factors,including pipeline length, diameter and manufacture fromcorrosion-resistant steel, as well as the volume of CO2 to betransported. Pipelines built near population centres or on difficultterrain, such as marshy or rocky ground, are more expensive29.

The IPCC estimates a cost range for pipelines of $1-8/ton of CO2

transported. A United States Congressional Research Servicesreport calculated capital costs for an 11 mile pipeline in theMidwestern region of the US at approximately $6 million. The samereport estimates that a dedicated interstate pipeline network inNorth Carolina would cost upwards of $5 billion due to the limitedgeological sequestration potential in that part of the country30.Storage and subsequent monitoring and verification costs areestimated by the IPCC to range from $0.5-8/tCO2 injected and$0.1-0.3/tCO2 injected, respectively. The overall cost of CCS couldtherefore serve as a major barrier to its deployment31.

For the above reasons, CCS power plants are not included in ourfinancial analysis.

Table 5.4 summarises our assumptions on the technical andeconomic parameters of future fossil-fuelled power planttechnologies. In spite of growing raw material prices, we assumethat further technical innovation will result in a moderate reductionof future investment costs as well as improved power plantefficiencies. These improvements are, however, outweighed by theexpected increase in fossil fuel prices, resulting in a significant risein electricity generation costs.

5

scena

rios fo

r a fu

ture en

ergy su

pp

ly|

MA

IN S

CE

NA

RIO

AS

SU

MP

TIO

NS

POWER PLANT

Efficiency (%)

Investment costs ($/kW)

Electricity generation costs including CO2 emission costs ($cents/kWh)

CO2 emissions a)(g/kWh)

Efficiency (%)

Investment costs ($/kW)

Electricity generation costs including CO2 emission costs ($cents/kWh)

CO2 emissions a)(g/kWh)

Efficiency (%)

Investment costs ($/kW)

Electricity generation costs including CO2 emission costs ($cents/kWh)

CO2 emissions a)(g/kWh)

2030

50

1,160

12.5

670

44.5

1,350

8.4

898

62

610

15.3

325

2040

52

1,130

14.2

644

45

1,320

9.3

888

63

580

17.4

320

2050

53

1,100

15.7

632

45

1,290

10.3

888

64

550

18.9

315

POWER PLANT

Coal-fired condensing power plant

Lignite-fired condensing power plant

Natural gas combined cycle

table 5.4: development of efficiency and investment costs for selected power plant technologies

2020

48

1,190

10.8

697

44

1,380

7.5

908

61

645

12.7

330

2010

46

1,230

9.0

728

43

1,440

6.5

929

59

675

10.5

342

2005

45

1,320

6.6

744

41

1,570

5.9

975

57

690

7.5

354

source DLR, 2008 a) CO2 EMISSIONS REFER TO POWER STATION OUTPUTS ONLY;LIFE-CYCLE EMISSIONS ARE NOT CONSIDERED.

references24 ‘GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL BRIEFING: CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE’,GOERNE, 200725 ABANADES, J C ET AL., 2005, PG 1026 NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORIES, 200727 RUBIN ET AL., 2005A, PG 4028 RAGDEN, P ET AL., 2006, PG 1829 HEDDLE, G ET AL., 2003, PG 1730 PARFOMAK, P & FOLGER, P, 2008, PG 5 AND 1231 RUBIN ET AL., 2005B, PG 4444

© P

N_P

HOT

O/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

image TRANSPORT POLLUTION.

44

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

EMISSIONS

LEGEND

REFERENCE SCENARIO

ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

REF

E[R]

0 1000 KM

EMISSIONS TOTALMILLION TONNES [mio t] | % OF 1990 EMISSIONS

EMISSIONS PER PERSON TONNES [t]

H HIGHEST | M MIDDLE | L LOWEST

CO2

300-200 200-100 100-50

50-0 % OF 1990 EMISSIONSIN THE 2050 ENERGY[R]EVOLUTIONSCENARIO

CO2

mio t %

OECD NORTH AMERICA

2005

2050

6,433H

9,135

111

158

2005

2050

14.74H

15.82H

mio t %

6,433

1,058M

111

18

14.74

1.83

t t

REF E[R]

CO2

mio t %

LATIN AMERICA

2005

2050

827

2,350

125

354

2005

2050

1.84

3.72

mio t %

827

369L

125

56

1.84

0.58

t t

REF E[R]

CO2

map 5.1: CO2 emissions reference scenario and the energy [r]evolution scenarioWORLDWIDE SCENARIO

5

scena

rios fo

r a fu

ture en

ergy su

pp

ly|

CO

2E

MIS

SIO

NS

45

mio t %

AFRICA

2005

2050

780L

2,064L

109

287

2005

2050

0.85L

1.03L

mio t %

780

895

109

125

0.85

0.45L

t t

REF E[R]

CO2

mio t %

INDIA

2005

2050

1,074

5,776

187

1,005

2005

2050

0.98

3.62

mio t %

1,074

1,662

187

289

0.98

1.04

t t

REF E[R]

CO2

mio t %

DEVELOPING ASIA

2005

2050

1,303

3,265

268

673

2005

2050

1.34

2.17

mio t %

1,303

1,148

268

236

1.34

0.76

t t

REF E[R]

CO2

mio t %

OECD PACIFIC

2005

2050

1,895

2,127

123

138

2005

2050

9.47

11.94

mio t %

1,895

433

123

28

9.47

2.43H

t t

REF E[R]

CO2

mio t %

GLOBAL

2005

2050

24,351

47,773

114

223

2005

2050

3.7

5.2

mio t %

24,351

10,589

114

49

3.7

1.2

t t

REF E[R]

CO2

mio t %

TRANSITION ECONOMIES

2005

2050

2,375M

3,003

53

67

2005

2050

6.96

10.22

mio t %

2,375

539

53

12

6.96

1.83

t t

REF E[R]

CO2

mio t %

CHINA

2005

2050

4,429

12,572H

198

561

2005

2050

3.35

8.86

mio t %

4,429

3,209H

198

143

3.35

2.26

t t

REF E[R]

CO2

mio t %

OECD EUROPE

2005

2050

4,062

4,553M

99

111

2005

2050

7.57

8.08M

mio t %

4,062

884

99

22

7.57

1.57M

t t

REF E[R]

CO2

DESIGN WWW.ONEHEMISPHERE.SE CONCEPT SVEN TESKE/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL.

mio t %

MIDDLE EAST

2005

2050

1,173

2,929

162

403

2005

2050

6.23M

8.44

mio t %

1,173

393

162

54

6.23

1.13

t t

REF E[R]

CO2

5

scena

rios fo

r a fu

ture en

ergy su

pp

ly|

CO

2E

MIS

SIO

NS

46

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

map 5.2: results reference scenario and the energy [r]evolution scenarioWORLDWIDE SCENARIO

SCENARIO

LEGEND

REFERENCE SCENARIO

ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

REF

E[R]

0 1000 KM

SHARE OF RENEWABLES %

SHARE OF FOSSIL FUELS %

SHARE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY %

H HIGHEST | M MIDDLE | L LOWESTPE PRIMARY ENERGY PRODUCTION/DEMAND IN PETA JOULE [PJ]

EL ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION/GENERATION IN TERAWATT HOURS [TWh]

RESULTS> -50 > -40 > -30

> -20 > -10 > 0

> +10 > +20 > +30

> +40 > +50 % CHANGE OF ENERGYCONSUMPTION IN ENERGY[R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO 2050COMPARED TO CURRENTCONSUMPTION 2005

PE PJ EL TWh

OECD NORTH AMERICA

2005

2050

115,888H

164,342

5,118

9,378

2005

2050

6

9

15

17

PE PJ EL TWh

115,888H

77,697

5,118

6,756

15

93

6

66

% %

2005

2050

85

84

85

31

67M

72M

67M

7

18

11

% %

2005

2050

9

7

NUCLEAR POWERPHASED OUT BY 2040

% %

REF E[R]

PE PJ EL TWh

LATIN AMERICA

2005

2050

21,143L

52,268

906

3,258

2005

2050

29

23

71H

47H

PE PJ EL TWh

21,143L

32,484

906

2,615

71H

95

29

71H

% %

2005

2050

70L

76

70L

26L

27L

52L

27L

5

2

2

% %

2005

2050

1

1

NUCLEAR POWERPHASED OUT BY 2030

% %

REF E[R]

5

scena

rios fo

r a fu

ture en

ergy su

pp

ly|

RE

SU

LTS

47

PE PJ EL TWh

AFRICA

2005

2050

25,243

53,286

564L

2,339L

2005

2050

49H

38H

17

22

PE PJ EL TWh

25,243

38,347

564L

2,076L

17

73

49H

56M

% %

2005

2050

50

62L

50

42M

81

78

81

27

2

1

% %

2005

2050

0L

0L

NUCLEAR POWERPHASED OUT BY 2025

% %

REF E[R]

PE PJ EL TWh

INDIA

2005

2050

22,344

89,090M

699

6,012

2005

2050

31

12

15

10

PE PJ EL TWh

22,344

52,120

699

4,435

15

60L

31

48

% %

2005

2050

68

85

68

52

82

87

82

40

3

3

% %

2005

2050

1

3

NUCLEAR POWERPHASED OUT BY 2045

% %

REF E[R]

PE PJ EL TWh

DEVELOPING ASIA

2005

2050

31,095

67,414

901

3,283

2005

2050

26

22

16

21

PE PJ EL TWh

31,095

43,838

901

2,356

16

67

26

49

% %

2005

2050

72

77

72

51

79

76

79

33

5M

3

% %

2005

2050

1

1

NUCLEAR POWERPHASED OUT BY 2045

% %

REF E[R]

PE PJ EL TWh

OECD PACIFIC

2005

2050

37,035

47,024L

1,780M

2,744

2005

2050

3

8

9

12

PE PJ EL TWh

37,035

24,952L

1,780M

2,111

9

78M

3

55

% %

2005

2050

83

75

83

45

66

61

66

22M

25H

27H

% %

2005

2050

13H

17H

NUCLEAR POWERPHASED OUT BY 2045

% %

REF E[R]

PE PJ EL TWh

GLOBAL

2005

2050

474,905

867,705

18,226

50,606

2005

2050

13

13

18

19

PE PJ EL TWh

474,905

480,861

18,226

37,116

18

77

1,297

5,611

% %

2005

2050

81

83

81

44

67

74

67

23

15

7

% %

2005

2050

6

4

NUCLEAR POWERPHASED OUT BY 2045

% %

REF E[R]

PE PJ EL TWh

TRANSITION ECONOMIES

2005

2050

46,254M

63,933

1,598

2,934

2005

2050

4

9

20M

21M

PE PJ EL TWh

46,254M

35,764

1,598

2,083

20M

81

4

62

% %

2005

2050

89

83

89

38

63

63

63

19

17

16

% %

2005

2050

7M

8

NUCLEAR POWERPHASED OUT BY 2045

% %

REF E[R]

PE PJ EL TWh

CHINA

2005

2050

73,007

185,017H

2,539

12,607H

2005

2050

15M

8

16

15

PE PJ EL TWh

73,007

99,152H

2,539

9,261H

16

63

15M

47L

% %

2005

2050

84

89

84

53H

82

81

82

37H

2

4

% %

2005

2050

1

3

NUCLEAR POWERPHASED OUT BY 2045

% %

REF E[R]

DESIGN WWW.ONEHEMISPHERE.SE CONCEPT SVEN TESKE/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL.

PE PJ EL TWh

OECD EUROPE

2005

2050

81,482

90,284

3,481

5,618M

2005

2050

8

15M

19

30

PE PJ EL TWh

81,482

48,918M

3,481

3,252M

19

86

8

60

% %

2005

2050

79M

79M

79M

43

53

62

53

14

28

8M

% %

2005

2050

13

5M

NUCLEAR POWERPHASED OUT BY 2030

% %

REF E[R]

PE PJ EL TWh

MIDDLE EAST

2005

2050

21,416

54,982

640

2,432

2005

2050

1L

2L

3L

4L

PE PJ EL TWh

21,416

27,590

640

2,171L

3L

96H

1L

62

% %

2005

2050

99H

98H

99H

37

97H

95H

97H

4

0L

0L

% %

2005

2050

0L

0L

NO NUCLEARENERGYDEVELOPMENT

% %

REF E[R]

5

scena

rios fo

r a fu

ture en

ergy su

pp

ly|

RE

SU

LTS

48

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

6. cost projections for renewable energy technologies

The range of renewable energy technologies available today displaymarked differences in terms of their technical maturity, costs anddevelopment potential. Whereas hydro power has been widely usedfor decades, other technologies, such as the gasification of biomass,have yet to find their way to market maturity. Some renewablesources by their very nature, including wind and solar power, providea variable supply, requiring a revised coordination with the gridnetwork. But although in many cases these are ‘distributed’technologies - their output being generated and used locally to theconsumer - the future will also see large-scale applications in theform of offshore wind parks, photovoltaic power plants orconcentrating solar power stations.

By using the individual advantages of the different technologies, andlinking them with each other, a wide spectrum of available optionscan be developed to market maturity and integrated step by stepinto the existing supply structures. This will eventually provide acomplementary portfolio of environmentally friendly technologiesfor heat and power supply and the provision of transport fuels.

Many of the renewable technologies employed today are at arelatively early stage of market development. As a result, the costsof electricity, heat and fuel production are generally higher thanthose of competing conventional systems - a reminder that theexternal (environmental and social) costs of conventional powerproduction are not included in the market prices. It is expected,however, that compared with conventional technologies large costreductions can be achieved through technical advances,manufacturing improvements and large-scale production. Especiallywhen developing long-term scenarios spanning periods of severaldecades, the dynamic trend of cost developments over time plays acrucial role in identifying economically sensible expansion strategies.

To identify long-term cost developments, learning curves have beenapplied which reflect the correlation between cumulative productionvolumes of a particular technology and a reduction in its costs. Formany technologies, the learning factor (or progress ratio) falls in therange between 0.75 for less mature systems to 0.95 and higher forwell-established technologies. A learning factor of 0.9 means thatcosts are expected to fall by 10% every time the cumulative outputfrom the technology doubles. Empirical data shows, for example,that the learning factor for PV solar modules has been fairlyconstant at 0.8 over 30 years whilst that for wind energy variesfrom 0.75 in the UK to 0.94 in the more advanced German market.

Assumptions on future costs for renewable electricity technologiesin the Energy [R]evolution Scenario are derived from a review oflearning curve studies, for example by Lena Neij and others32, fromthe analysis of recent technology foresight and road mappingstudies, including the European Commission funded NEEDS (NewEnergy Externalities Developments for Sustainability)33 project orthe IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2008, and a discussionwith experts from the renewable energy industry.

5

scena

rios fo

r a fu

ture en

ergy su

pp

ly|

MA

IN S

CE

NA

RIO

AS

SU

MP

TIO

NS

“large cost reductions can be achievedthrough technical advances, manufacturingimprovements and large-scale production.”

references32 NEIJ, L, ‘COST DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES FOR POWER GENERATION -A STUDY BASED ON EXPERIENCE CURVES AND COMPLEMENTARY BOTTOM-UPASSESSMENTS’, ENERGY POLICY 36 (2008), 2200-221133 WWW.NEEDS-PROJECT.ORG

49

photovoltaics (pv)

The worldwide photovoltaics (PV) market has been growing at over35% per annum in recent years and the contribution it can make toelectricity generation is starting to become significant. Developmentwork is focused on improving existing modules and systemcomponents by increasing their energy efficiency and reducingmaterial usage. Technologies like PV thin film (using alternativesemiconductor materials) or dye sensitive solar cells are developingquickly and present a huge potential for cost reduction. The maturetechnology crystalline silicon, with a proven lifetime of 30 years, iscontinually increasing its cell and module efficiency (by 0.5%annually), whereas the cell thickness is rapidly decreasing (from230 to 180 microns over the last five years). Commercial moduleefficiency varies from 14 to 21% depending on silicon quality andfabrication process.

The learning factor for PV modules has been fairly constant overthe last 30 years, with a cost reduction of 20% each time theinstalled capacity doubles, indicating a high rate of technicallearning. Assuming a globally installed capacity of 1,600 GW bybetween 2030 and 2040, and with an electricity output of 2,600TWh, we can expect that generation costs of around 5-10cents/kWh (depending on the region) will be achieved. During thefollowing five to ten years, PV will become competitive with retailelectricity prices in many parts of the world and competitive withfossil fuel costs by 2050. The importance of photovoltaics comesfrom its decentralised/centralised character, its flexibility for use inan urban environment and huge potential for cost reduction.

concentrating solar power (csp)

Solar thermal ‘concentrating’ power stations (CSP) can only usedirect sunlight and are therefore dependent on high irradiationlocations. North Africa, for example, has a technical potentialwhich far exceeds local demand. The various solar thermaltechnologies (parabolic trough, power towers and parabolic dishconcentrators) offer good prospects for further development andcost reductions. Because of their more simple design, ‘Fresnel’collectors are considered as an option for additional cost reduction.The efficiency of central receiver systems can be increased byproducing compressed air at a temperature of up to 1,000°C, whichis then used to run a combined gas and steam turbine.

Thermal storage systems are a key component for reducing CSPelectricity generation costs. The Spanish Andasol 1 plant, forexample, is equipped with molten salt storage with a capacity of7.5 hours. A higher level of full load operation can be realised byusing a thermal storage system and a large collector field. Althoughthis leads to higher investment costs, it reduces the cost ofelectricity generation.

Depending on the level of irradiation and mode of operation, it isexpected that long term future electricity generation costs of 6-10cents/kWh can be achieved. This presupposes rapid marketintroduction in the next few years.

5

scena

rios fo

r a fu

ture en

ergy su

pp

ly|

MA

IN S

CE

NA

RIO

AS

SU

MP

TIO

NS

2030

921

1,280

13

2040

1,799

1,140

11

2050

2,911

1,080

10

2020

269

1,660

16

2010

21

3,760

38

2005

5.2

6,600

66

table 5.5: photovoltaics (pv)

Global installed capacity (GW)

Investment costs ($/kW)

Operation & maintenance costs ($/kWa)

2030

199

4,430

180

2040

468

4,360

160

2050

801

4,320

155

2020

83

5,240

210

2010

5

6,340

250

2005

0.53

7,530

300

table 5.6: concentrating solar power (csp)

Global installed capacity (GW)

Investment costs ($/kW)

Operation & maintenance costs ($/kWa)

© R

ED

ON

DO

/GP

image THE PS10 SOLAR TOWER PLANT ATSAN LUCAR LA MAYOR OUTSIDE SEVILLE,SPAIN, APRIL 29, 2008.

50

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

wind power

Within a short period of time, the dynamic development of windpower has resulted in the establishment of a flourishing globalmarket. The world’s largest wind turbines, several of which havebeen installed in Germany, have a capacity of 6 MW. Whilefavourable policy incentives have made Europe the main driver forthe global wind market, in 2007 more than half of the annualmarket was outside Europe. This trend is likely to continue. Theboom in demand for wind power technology has nonetheless led tosupply constraints. As a consequence, the cost of new systems hasstagnated or even increased. Because of the continuous expansionof production capacities, the industry expects to resolve thebottlenecks in the supply chain over the next few years. Taking intoaccount market development projections, learning curve analysisand industry expectations, we assume that investment costs forwind turbines will reduce by 30% for onshore and 50% foroffshore installations up to 2050.

biomass

The crucial factor for the economics of biomass utilisation is thecost of the feedstock, which today ranges from a negative cost forwaste wood (based on credit for waste disposal costs avoided)through inexpensive residual materials to the more expensive energycrops. The resulting spectrum of energy generation costs iscorrespondingly broad. One of the most economic options is the useof waste wood in steam turbine combined heat and power (CHP)plants. Gasification of solid biomass, on the other hand, whichopens up a wide range of applications, is still relatively expensive.In the long term it is expected that favourable electricity productioncosts will be achieved by using wood gas both in micro CHP units(engines and fuel cells) and in gas-and-steam power plants. Greatpotential for the utilisation of solid biomass also exists for heatgeneration in both small and large heating centres linked to localheating networks. Converting crops into ethanol and ‘bio diesel’made from rapeseed methyl ester (RME) has become increasinglyimportant in recent years, for example in Brazil, the USA andEurope. Processes for obtaining synthetic fuels from biogenicsynthesis gases will also play a larger role.

A large potential for exploiting modern technologies exists in Latinand North America, Europe and the Transition Economies, either instationary appliances or the transport sector. In the long termEurope and the Transition Economies will realise 20-50% of thepotential for biomass from energy crops, whilst biomass use in allthe other regions will have to rely on forest residues, industrial woodwaste and straw. In Latin America, North America and Africa inparticular, an increasing residue potential will be available.

In other regions, such as the Middle East and all Asian regions, theadditional use of biomass is restricted, either due to a generally lowavailability or already high traditional use. For the latter, usingmodern, more efficient technologies will improve the sustainabilityof current usage and have positive side effects, such as reducingindoor pollution and the heavy workloads currently associated withtraditional biomass use.

5

scena

rios fo

r a fu

ture en

ergy su

pp

ly|

MA

IN S

CE

NA

RIO

AS

SU

MP

TIO

NS

2030

1,622

1,508

1,110

43

114

2,200

97

2040

2,220

1,887

1,090

41

333

1,990

88

2050

2,733

2,186

1,090

41

547

1,890

83

2020

893

866

1,180

45

27

2,600

114

2010

164

162

1,370

51

1,6

3,480

153

2005

59

59

1,510

58

0,3

3,760

166

table 5.7: wind power

Installed capacity (on+offshore)

Wind onshore

Global installed capacity (GW)

Investment costs ($/kW)

O&M costs ($/kWa)

Wind offshore

Global installed capacity (GW)

Investment costs ($/kW)

O&M costs ($/kWa)

2030

65

2,470

148

275

3,380

236

2040

81

2,440

147

411

3,110

218

2050

99

2,415

146

521

2,950

207

2020

56

2,530

152

177

3,860

271

2010

35

2,750

166

60

4,970

348

2005

21

3,040

183

32

5,770

404

table 5.8: biomass

Biomass (electricity only)

Global installed capacity (GW)

Investment costs ($/kW)

O&M costs ($/kWa)

Biomass (CHP)

Global installed capacity (GW)

Investment costs ($/kW)

O&M costs ($/kWa)

51

geothermal

Geothermal energy has long been used worldwide for supplyingheat, and since the beginning of the last century for electricitygeneration as well. Geothermally generated electricity waspreviously limited to sites with specific geological conditions, butfurther intensive research and development work has enabled thepotential areas to be widened. In particular the creation of largeunderground heat exchange surfaces (Enhanced GeothermalSystems - EGS) and the improvement of low temperature powerconversion, for example with the Organic Rankine Cycle, open upthe possibility of producing geothermal electricity anyywhere.Advanced heat and power cogeneration plants will also improve theeconomics of geothermal electricity.

As a large part of the costs for a geothermal power plant comefrom deep underground drilling, further development of innovativedrilling technology is expected. Assuming a global average marketgrowth for geothermal power capacity of 9% per year up to 2020,adjusting to 4% beyond 2030, the result would be a cost reductionpotential of 50% by 2050:

• for conventional geothermal power, from 7 cents/kWh to about 2 cents/kWh.

• for EGS, despite the presently high figures (about 20 cents/kWh),electricity production costs - depending on the payments for heatsupply - are expected to come down to around 5 cents/kWh in the long term.

Because of its non-fluctuating supply and a grid load operatingalmost 100% of the time, geothermal energy is considered to be akey element in a future supply structure based on renewable sources.Until now we have just used a marginal part of the geothermalheating and cooling potential. Shallow geothermal drilling makespossible the delivery of heating and cooling at any time anywhere,and can be used for thermal energy storage.

ocean energy

Ocean energy, particularly offshore wave energy, is a significantresource, and has the potential to satisfy an important percentage ofelectricity supply worldwide. Globally, the potential of ocean energyhas been estimated at around 90,000 TWh/year. The most significantadvantages are the vast availability and high predictability of theresource and a technology with very low visual impact and no CO2

emissions. Many different concepts and devices have been developed,including taking energy from the tides, waves, currents and boththermal and saline gradient resources. Many of them are in anadvanced phase of R&D, large scale prototypes have been deployedin real sea conditions and some have reached pre-marketdeployment. There are a few grid connected, fully operationalcommercial wave and tidal generating plants.

The cost of energy from initial tidal and wave energy farms has beenestimated to be in the range of 15-55 €cents/kWh, and for initialtidal stream farms in the range of 11-22 €cents/kWh. Generationcosts of 10-25 €cents/kWh are expected by 2020. Key areas fordevelopment will include concept design, optimisation of the deviceconfiguration, reduction of capital costs by exploring the use ofalternative structural materials, economies of scale and learningfrom operation. According to the latest research findings, thelearning factor is estimated to be 10-15% for offshore wave and 5-10% for tidal stream. In the medium term, ocean energy has thepotential to become one of the most competitive and cost effectiveforms of generation. In the next few years a dynamic marketpenetration is expected, following a similar curve to wind energy.

Because of the early development stage any future cost estimatesfor ocean energy systems are uncertain, and no learning curve datais available. Present cost estimates are based on analysis from theEuropean NEEDS project34.

5

scena

rios fo

r a fu

ture en

ergy su

pp

ly|

MA

IN S

CE

NA

RIO

AS

SU

MP

TIO

NS

2030

71

10,150

375

38

7,950

294

2040

120

9,490

351

82

6,930

256

2050

152

8,980

332

124

6,310

233

2020

33

11,560

428

13

9,510

351

2010

12

15,040

557

1.7

13,050

483

2005

8.7

17,440

645

0.24

17,500

647

table 5.9: geothermal

Geothermal (electricity only)

Global installed capacity (GW)

Investment costs ($/kW)

O&M costs ($/kWa)

Geothermal (CHP)

Global installed capacity (GW)

Investment costs ($/kW)

O&M costs ($/kWa)

2030

44

2,240

89

2040

98

1,870

75

2050

194

1,670

66

2020

17

2,910

117

2010

0.9

5,170

207

2005

0.27

9,040

360

table 5.10: ocean energy

Global installed capacity (GW)

Investment costs ($/kW)

Operation & maintenance costs ($/kWa)

references34 WWW.NEEDS-PROJECT.ORG

© J

OA

NN

E/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

© G

P/M

AR

TIN

BO

ND

image 100 KW PV GENERATING PLANTNEAR BELLINZONA-LOCARNO RAILWAYLINE. GORDOLA, SWITZERLAND.

image THE POWER OF THE OCEAN.

52

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

hydro power

Hydropower is a mature technology with a significant part of itspotential already exploited. There is still, however, some potentialleft both for new schemes (especially small scale run-of-riverprojects with little or no reservoir impoundment) and forrepowering of existing sites. The significance of hydropower is alsolikely to be encouraged by the increasing need for flood control andmaintenance of water supply during dry periods. The future is insustainable hydropower which makes an effort to integrate plantswith river ecosystems while reconciling ecology with economicallyattractive power generation.

summary of renewable energy cost development

Figure 5.4 summarises the cost trends for renewable energytechnologies as derived from the respective learning curves. It shouldbe emphasised that the expected cost reduction is basically not afunction of time, but of cumulative capacity, so dynamic marketdevelopment is required. Most of the technologies will be able toreduce their specific investment costs to between 30% and 70% ofcurrent levels by 2020, and to between 20% and 60% once theyhave achieved full development (after 2040).

Reduced investment costs for renewable energy technologies leaddirectly to reduced heat and electricity generation costs, as shown inFigure 5.5. Generation costs today are around 8 to 25 €cents/kWh(10-25 $cents/kWh) for the most important technologies, with theexception of photovoltaics. In the long term, costs are expected toconverge at around 4 to 10 €cents/kWh (5-12 $cents/kWh). Theseestimates depend on site-specific conditions such as the local windregime or solar irradiation, the availability of biomass at reasonableprices or the credit granted for heat supply in the case of combinedheat and power generation.

5

scena

rios fo

r a fu

ture en

ergy su

pp

ly|

MA

IN S

CE

NA

RIO

AS

SU

MP

TIO

NS

2030

1300

3200

128

2040

1443

3320

133

2050

1565

3420

137

2020

1178

3070

123

2010

978

2880

115

2005

878

2760

110

table 5.11: hydro

Global installed capacity (GW)

Investment costs ($/kW)

Operation & maintenance costs ($/kWa)

120

100

80

60

40

20

% 0

figure 5.4: future development of investment costs (NORMALISED TO CURRENT COST LEVELS) FOR RENEWABLE

ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

•PV

•WIND ONSHORE

•WIND OFFSHORE

• BIOMASS POWER PLANT

• BIOMASS CHP

• GEOTHERMAL CHP

• CONCENTRATING SOLAR THERMAL

• OCEAN ENERGY

• PV

•WIND

• BIOMASS CHP

• GEOTHERMAL CHP

• CONCENTRATING SOLAR THERMAL

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

ct/kWh 0

figure 5.5: expected development of electricity generationcosts from fossil fuel and renewable optionsEXAMPLE FOR OECD NORTH AMERICA

2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

© M

. HO

LL

MA

N/D

RE

AM

STIM

Eimage BENMORE HYDRO DAM, NEW ZEALAND.

53

6key results of the global energy [r]evolution scenario

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

“for us to develop in a sustainable way,strong measures haveto be taken to combatclimate change.”HU JINTAOPRESIDENT OF CHINA

6

imag

eS

OL

AR

PA

NE

L. ©

BE

RN

D J

UE

RG

EN

S/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

54

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

The development of future global energy demand is determined by three key factors:

• Population development: the number of people consuming energyor using energy services.

• Economic development, for which Gross Domestic Product(GDP) is the most commonly used indicator. In general, an increase in GDP triggers an increase in energy demand.

• Energy intensity: how much energy is required to produce a unit of GDP.

Both the Reference and Energy [R]evolution Scenarios are basedon the same projections of population and economic development.The future development of energy intensity, however, differs betweenthe two, taking into account the measures to increase energyefficiency under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario.

global: projection of energy intensity

An increase in economic activity and a growing population does notnecessarily have to result in an equivalent increase in energydemand. There is still a large potential for exploiting energyefficiency measures. Under the Reference Scenario, we assume thatenergy intensity will be reduced by 1.25% on average per year,leading to a reduction in final energy demand per unit of GDP ofabout 56% between 2005 and 2050. Under the Energy[R]evolution Scenario, it is assumed that active policy and technicalsupport for energy efficiency measures will lead to an even higherreduction in energy intensity of almost 73%.

6

key resu

lts|

GL

OB

AL

- INT

EN

SIT

Y

figure 6.1: global: projection of average energy intensityunder the reference and energy [r]evolution scenarios

5

4.5

4

4.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

MJ/$ 0

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

US$ 0

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

US$ 0

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

figure 6.2: global: energy intensity by world regionunder the reference scenario

GJ/

GD

P 1

000

US

$

2005 2010 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050

•WORLD

• OECD NORTH AMERICA

• OECD EUROPE

• OECD PACIFIC

• CHINA

• INDIA

•TRANSITION ECONOMIES

• DEVELOPING ASIA

• LATIN AMERICA

•MIDDLE EAST

• AFRICA

figure 6.3: global: energy intensity by world regionunder the energy [r]evolution scenario

GJ/

GD

P 1

000

US

$

2005 2010 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICA LATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

global

•ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

• REFERENCE SCENARIO

55

global: development of energy demand by sector

Combining the projections on population development, GDP growthand energy intensity results in future development pathways for theworld’s energy demand. These are shown in Figure 6.4 for both theReference and Energy [R]evolution Scenarios. Under the ReferenceScenario, total primary energy demand almost doubles from474,900 PJ/a in 2005 to 867,700 PJ/a in 2050. In the Energy[R]evolution Scenario, demand increases up to 2015 by 16% anddecreases to close to today’s level of 480,860 PJ in 2050.

The accelerated increase in energy efficiency, which is a crucialprerequisite for achieving a sufficiently large share of renewableenergy sources in our energy supply, is beneficial not only for theenvironment but also for economics. Taking into account the fullservice life, in most cases the implementation of energy efficiencymeasures saves costs compared to an additional energy supply. Themobilisation of cost-effective energy saving potential leads directlyto a reduction in costs. A dedicated energy efficiency strategy thusalso helps to compensate in part for the additional costs requiredduring the market introduction phase of renewable energy sources.

Under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, electricity demand is expectedto increase disproportionately, with households and services the mainsource of growing consumption (see Figure 6.5). With the exploitation ofefficiency measures, however, an even higher increase can be avoided,leading to electricity demand of around 30,800 TWh/a in the year 2050.Compared to the Reference Scenario, efficiency measures avoid thegeneration of about 12,800 TWh/a. This reduction in energy demand canbe achieved in particular by introducing highly efficient electronic devicesusing the best available technology in all demand sectors. Employment ofsolar architecture in both residential and commercial buildings will helpto curb the growing demand for active air-conditioning.

Efficiency gains in the heat supply sector are even larger. Under the Energy[R]evolution Scenario, final demand for heat supply can even be reduced

(see Figure 6.6). Compared to the Reference Scenario, consumptionequivalent to 46,000 PJ/a is avoided through efficiency gains by 2050. Asa result of energy-related renovation of the existing stock of residentialbuildings, as well as the introduction of low energy standards and ‘passivehouses’ for new buildings, enjoyment of the same comfort and energyservices will be accompanied by a much lower future energy demand.

In the transport sector, it is assumed under the Energy [R]evolutionScenario that energy demand will increase by 12 % to around94,000 PJ/a in 2015 and will fall slightly afterwards down to83,300 PJ/a in 2050, saving 100,000 PJ compared to the ReferenceScenario. This reduction can be achieved by the introduction of highlyefficient vehicles, by shifting the transport of goods from road to railand by changes in mobility-related behaviour patterns.

6

key resu

lts|

GL

OB

AL

- DE

MA

ND

figure 6.4: global: projection of final energy demand by sector for the two scenarios

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

REF2010

REF2020

REF2030

REF2040

REF2050

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

PJ/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

figure 6.5: global: development of electricity demand by sector (‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO; OTHER SECTORS = SERVICES, HOUSEHOLDS)

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

TWh/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

figure 6.6: global: development of heat demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• INDUSTRY• OTHER SECTORS

•TRANSPORT

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

PJ/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

© L

AN

GR

OC

K/Z

EN

IT/G

P

image BERLINER GEOSOL INSTALLINGTHE SOLAR ENERGY PLANT(PHOTOVOLTAIK) “LEIPZIGER LAND”OWNED BY SHELL SOLAR IN A FORMERBROWN COAL AREA NEAR LEIPZIG,SACHSEN, GERMANY.

global: electricity generation

The development of the electricity supply sector is characterised by adynamically growing renewable energy market and an increasing shareof renewable electricity. This will compensate for the phasing out ofnuclear energy and reduce the number of fossil fuel-fired power plantsrequired for grid stabilisation. By 2050, 77% of the electricityproduced worldwide will come from renewable energy sources. ‘New’ renewables – mainly wind, solar thermal energy and PV – willcontribute over 60% of electricity generation. The following strategypaves the way for a future renewable energy supply:

• The phasing out of nuclear energy and rising electricity demandwill be met initially by bringing into operation new highly efficientgas-fired combined-cycle power plants, plus an increasingcapacity of wind turbines, biomass, concentrating solar powerplants and solar photovoltaics. In the long term, wind will be themost important single source of electricity generation.

• Solar energy, hydro and biomass will make substantial contributionsto electricity generation. In particular, as non-fluctuating renewableenergy sources, hydro and solar thermal, combined with efficientheat storage, are important elements in the overall generation mix.

• The installed capacity of renewable energy technologies will growfrom the current 1,000 GW to 9,100 GW in 2050. Increasingrenewable capacity by a factor of nine within the next 42 yearsrequires political support and well-designed policy instruments,however. There will be a considerable demand for investment innew production capacity over the next 20 years. As investmentcycles in the power sector are long, decisions on restructuring theworld’s energy supply system need to be taken now.

To achieve an economically attractive growth in renewable energysources, a balanced and timely mobilisation of all technologies is ofgreat importance. This mobilisation depends on technical potentials,cost reduction and technological maturity. Figure 21 shows thecomparative evolution of the different renewable technologies overtime. Up to 2020, hydro-power and wind will remain the majorcontributors to the growing market share. After 2020, thecontinuing growth of wind will be complemented by electricity frombiomass, photovoltaic and solar thermal (CSP) energy.

56

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

6

key resu

lts|

GL

OB

AL

- EL

EC

TR

ICIT

Y G

EN

ER

AT

ION

figure 6.7: global: development of electricity supplystructure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

TWh/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.8: global: growth of renewable electricitygeneration under the energy [r]evolution scenarioBY INDIVIDUAL SOURCE

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• RES IMPORT

• OCEAN ENERGY

• SOLAR THERMAL

• PV

• GEOTHERMAL

•WIND

• HYDRO

• BIOMASS

• GAS & OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

GWel 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

table 6.1: global: projection of renewable electricitygeneration capacity under the energy [r]evolution scenarioIN GW

2020

1,178

233

893

46

269

83

17

2,719

2040

1,443

492

2,220

203

1,799

468

98

6,723

2050

1,565

619

2,911

276

2,911

801

194

9,100

Hydro

Biomass

Wind

Geothermal

PV

Solarthermal

Ocean energy

Total

2030

1,300

341

1,622

108

921

199

44

4,536

2010

978

95

164

14

21

5

1

1,276

2005

878

52

59

9

2

0.5

0.3

1,001

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICA LATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

global

57

6

key resu

lts|

GL

OB

AL

- CO

ST

S - H

EA

TIN

G &

CO

OL

ING

global: future costs of electricity generation

Figure 27 shows that the introduction of renewable technologies under theEnergy [R]evolution Scenario slightly increases the costs of electricitygeneration compared to the Reference Scenario. This difference will be lessthan 0.2 cents/kWh up to 2020. Note that any increase in fossil fuel pricesbeyond the projection given in Table 6.1 will reduce the gap between thetwo scenarios. Because of the lower CO2 intensity of electricity generation,by 2020 electricity generation costs will become economically favourableunder the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, and by 2050 generation costswill be more than 5 cents/kWh below those in the Reference Scenario.

Due to growing demand, we face a significant increase in society’sexpenditure on electricity supply. Under the Reference Scenario, theunchecked growth in demand, the increase in fossil fuel prices and thecost of CO2 emissions result in total electricity supply costs rising fromtoday’s $1,750 billion per year to more than $7,300 bn in 2050. Figure28 shows that the Energy [R]evolution Scenario not only complies withglobal CO2 reduction targets but also helps to stabilise energy costs andrelieve the economic pressure on society. Increasing energy efficiencyand shifting energy supply to renewables leads to long term costs forelectricity supply that are one third lower than in the ReferenceScenario. It becomes clear that pursuing stringent environmental targetsin the energy sector also pays off in terms of economics.

global: heat and cooling supply

Development of renewables in the heat supply sector raisesdifferent issues. Today, renewables provide 24%of primary energydemand for heat supply, the main contribution coming from the useof biomass. The lack of district heating networks is a severestructural barrier to the large scale utilisation of geothermal andsolar thermal energy. Past experience shows that it is easier toimplement effective support instruments in the grid-connectedelectricity sector than in the heat market, with its multitude ofdifferent actors. Dedicated support instruments are required toensure a dynamic development.

In the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, renewables satisfy more than70% of the total global heating demand in 2050.

• Energy efficiency measures can decrease the current per capitademand for heat supply by 30% in spite of improving living standards.

• For direct heating, solar collectors, biomass/biogas as well as geothermal energy will increasingly substitute for fossil fuel-fired systems.

• A shift from coal and oil to natural gas in the remaining conventionalapplications will lead to a further reduction of CO2 emissions.

figure 6.11: global: development of heat supplystructure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

• FOSSIL FUELS

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

TWh/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.9: global: development of specific electricitygeneration costs under the two scenarios(CO2 EMISSION COSTS IMPOSED FROM 2010,

WITH AN INCREASE FROM 15 $/TCO2IN 2010 TO 50 $/TCO2

IN 2050)

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

$¢/kWh 42000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

figure 6.10: global: development of total electricity supply costs

•• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION - ‘EFFICIENCY’ MEASURES

• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

• REFERENCE SCENARIO

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

B $/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

© L

AN

GR

OC

K/Z

EN

IT/G

P

© L

AN

GR

OC

K/Z

EN

IT/G

P

image TEST WIND MILL N90 2500, BUILD BY GERMAN COMPANY NORDEX, IN THEHARBOUR OF ROSTOCK. THIS WIND MILL PRODUCES 2,5 MEGA WATT AND AT LEAST 10FACILITIES OF THIS TYPE WILL BE ERECTED 20 KM OFF THE ISLAND DARSS IN THEBALTIC SEA.

image SOLON AG PHOTOVOLTAICS FACILITY IN ARNSTEIN OPERATING 1,500HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SOLAR “MOVERS”. LARGEST TRACKING SOLAR FACILITY IN THE WORLD. EACH “MOVER” CAN BE BOUGHT AS A PRIVATE INVESTMENT FROM THE S.A.G. SOLARSTROM AG, BAYERN, GERMANY.

global: transport

In the transport sector, it is assumed that under the Energy[R]evolution Scenario, due to fast growing demand for services,energy demand will further increase up to 2015. After that demandwill decrease, falling to below its current level in 2050. Comparedto the Reference Scenario, energy demand is reduced by 54%. Thisreduction can be achieved by the introduction of highly efficientvehicles, by shifting the transport of goods from road to rail and bychanges in mobility-related behaviour patterns. By implementingattractive alternatives to individual cars, the amount of cars willgrow more slowly than in the Reference Scenario. In 2050,electricity will provide 24% of the transport sector’s total energydemand, while 61% of the demand will be covered by fossil fuels.

global: primary energy consumption

Taking into account the assumptions discussed above, the resultingprimary energy consumption under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario isshown in Figure 6.13. Compared to the Reference Scenario, overallenergy demand will be reduced by almost 45% in 2050. More than halfof the remaining demand will be covered by renewable energy sources.Note that because of the ‘efficiency method’ used for the calculation ofprimary energy consumption, which postulates that the amount ofelectricity generation from hydro, wind, solar and geothermal energyequals the primary energy consumption, the share of renewables seemsto be lower than their actual importance as energy suppliers.

58

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

6

key resu

lts|

GL

OB

AL

- TR

AN

SP

OR

T - C

ON

SU

MP

TIO

N - C

O2

EM

ISS

ION

S

figure 6.12: global: transport under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• HYDROGEN

• ELECTRICITY

• BIO FUELS

• NATURAL GAS

• OIL PRODUCTS

200,000

180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.13: global: development of primary energyconsumption under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• OCEAN ENERGY

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

•WIND

• HYDRO

• NATURAL GAS

• CRUDE OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

1,000,000

900,000

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

development of global CO2 emissions

Whilst worldwide emissions of CO2 will almost double under theReference Scenario, under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario theywill decrease from 24,350 million tonnes in 2005 to 10,600 m/t in2050. Annual per capita emissions will drop from 3.7 tonnes to1.15 t. In spite of the phasing out of nuclear energy and increasingdemand, CO2 emissions will decrease in the electricity sector. In thelong run efficiency gains and the increased use of renewableelectricity will even reduce CO2 emissions in the transport sector.With a share of 35% of total CO2 in 2050, the power sector willfall significantly but remain the largest source of emissions,followed by transport.

figure 6.14: global: development of CO2 emissions by sector under the energy [r]evolution scenario (‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• SAVINGS FROM ‘EFFICIENCY’ & RENEWABLES

•TRANSPORT

• OTHER SECTORS• INDUSTRY

• PUBLIC ELECTRICITY & CHP

50,00045,00040,00035,00030,00025,00020,00015,00010,000

500Mil t/a 0

E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICA LATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

global

59

6

key resu

lts|

GL

OB

AL

- CO

2E

MIS

SIO

NS

global: regional breakdown of CO2 emissions in 2050

With effective efficiency standards OECD countries can reducetheir per capita energy consumption significantly while developingcountries could slow down their massive increase in energy demand.At the same time renewable energy sources can increase thereshare in the energy mix to over 50 % globally. In some regions, therenewable energy share will be well above 80%, while economicgrowth is still maintained over the entire scenario period.

With this shift, annual per capita CO2 emissions will fall from theircurrent level of about 3.6 tonnes to 1.15 tonnes in 2050. OECDcountries will be able to reduce their CO2 emissions by about 80%.The Energy [R]evolution Scenario for the USA shows that it ispossible to reduce per capita CO2 emissions from 19 tonnes now to3 tonnes by 2050. For the EU-27 countries, per capita emissionswill fall from 8 to just under 2 tonnes per capita. Developingcountries such as the Philippines could even keep per capitaemissions at their current level of about 1 tonne of CO2 until 2050,while maintaining economic growth. A combination of efficiencystandards and renewable energy development proves to be the mostcost effective way to cut CO2 emissions and increase security ofsupply by reducing dependence on fossil fuel imports.

Under the global Energy [R]evolution Scenario, China and Indiawill emit almost half of the remaining CO2 emissions in 2050, whileall OECD countries together will have a share of about 22%.

global: CO2 emissions by source

In 2050, coal will be by far the largest source of CO2, mainly from coal-fired power stations in China and India as well as powerstations in other developing countries. Since those emissions aremainly from power stations built between 2000 and 2015, and theaverage lifetime of a coal-fired power plant is calculated at 40years, in order to achieve the projected reduction, the constructionof new coal power stations must end across most of the world by2015 and in developing countries by 2020.

The second biggest emitter is oil, mainly from the remaining oilused in the transport sector.

figure 6.15: global: CO2 emissions in 2050

8% OECD EUROPE

10% OECD NORTHAMERICA

4% OECD PACIFIC

30% CHINA

16% INDIA

32% R0W

figure 6.17: global: CO2 emissions in 205010,5 Gt -> BREAKDOWN BY SECTOR

0% DISTRICT HEATING0.0021 Gt

20% INDUSTRY2.067 Gt

13% OTHER SECTORS1.333 Gt

33% TRANSPORT3.493 Gt

34% ELECTRICITY &STEAM GENERATION

3.675 Gt

figure 6.16: global: CO2 emissions electricity & steam generation in 20504,35Gt

-> 62% COAL 2.7 Gt

-> 37% GAS 1.6 Gt

-> 1% OIL & DIESEL 0.024 Gt

regional breakdown of energy [r]evolution scenario The outcome of the Energy [R]evolution Scenario for each region of the world shows how the global pattern is adapted to regional circumstances in terms of predicted demand and the potential for developing different sources of future energy generation.

© I.

BR

ACE

GIR

DLE

/DR

EA

MST

IMEimage HIGH MARNHAM COAL-FIRED

POWER STATION ON THE RIVER TRENT INNOTTINGHAMSHIRE, UK.

60

6

key resu

lts|

OE

CD

NO

RT

H A

ME

RIC

A - D

EM

AN

D

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

oecd north america

oecd north america: energy demand by sector

Combining the projections on population development, GDP growthand energy intensity results in future development pathways forNorth America’s energy demand. These are shown in Figure 6.18for both the Reference and Energy [R]evolution Scenarios. Underthe Reference Scenario, total primary energy demand increases bymore than 40% from the current 115,900 PJ/a to 164,300 PJ/ain 2050. In the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, primary energydemand decreases by 33% compared to current consumption and isexpected by 2050 to reach 77,700 PJ/a.

Under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, electricity demand is expectedto decrease in the industry sector, but to grow in the transport as well asin the residential and service sectors (see Figure 6.19). Total electricitydemand will rise to 5,730 TWh/a in the year 2050. Compared to theReference Scenario, efficiency measures avoid the generation of about2,460 TWh/a. This reduction in energy demand can be achieved inparticular by introducing highly efficient electronic devices using the bestavailable technology in all demand sectors. Employment of solar

architecture in both residential and commercial buildings will help tocurb the growing demand for active air-conditioning.

Efficiency gains in the heat supply sector are even larger. Under theEnergy [R]evolution Scenario, demand for heat supply will grow up to2030, but after that can even be reduced to below the current level (seeFigure 6.20). Compared to the Reference Scenario, consumptionequivalent to 7,850 PJ/a is avoided through efficiency gains by 2050. Asa result of energy-related renovation of the existing stock of residentialbuildings, as well as the introduction of low energy standards and ‘passivehouses’ for new buildings, enjoyment of the same comfort and energyservices will be accompanied by a much lower future energy demand.

In the transport sector, it is assumed under the Energy [R]evolutionScenario that energy demand will decrease by half to 16,720 PJ/aby 2050, saving 65% compared to the Reference Scenario. Thisreduction can be achieved by the introduction of highly efficientvehicles, by shifting the transport of goods from road to rail and bychanges in mobility-related behaviour patterns.

figure 6.18: oecd north america: projection of total final energy demand by sector for the two scenarios

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

REF2010

REF2020

REF2030

REF2040

REF2050

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

PJ/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

figure 6.19: oecd north america: development of electricity demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO; OTHER SECTORS = SERVICES, HOUSEHOLDS)

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

TWh/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

figure 6.20: oecd north america: development of heat demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• INDUSTRY• OTHER SECTORS

•TRANSPORT

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

61

6

key resu

lts|

OE

CD

NO

RT

H A

ME

RIC

A - E

LE

CT

RIC

ITY

GE

NE

RA

TIO

N

oecd north america: electricity generation

The development of the electricity supply sector is characterised by adynamically growing renewable energy market and an increasing shareof renewable electricity. This will compensate for the phasing out ofnuclear energy and reduce the number of fossil fuel-fired power plantsrequired for grid stabilisation. By 2050, 94% of the electricityproduced in OECD North America will come from renewable energysources. ‘New’ renewables – mainly wind, solar thermal energy and PV– will contribute over 85% of electricity generation.

Figure 6.22 shows the comparative evolution of the differentrenewable technologies in OECD North America over time. Up to2020, hydro-power and wind will remain the main contributors tothe growing market share. After 2020, the continuing growth ofwind will be complemented by electricity from biomass,photovoltaics and solar thermal (CSP) energy.

figure 6.21: oecd north america: development of electricitygeneration structure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

TWh/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.22: oecd north america: growth of renewableelectricity generation capacity under the energy [r]evolution scenario BY INDIVIDUAL SOURCE

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• RES IMPORT

• OCEAN ENERGY

• SOLAR THERMAL

• PV

• GEOTHERMAL

•WIND

• HYDRO

• BIOMASS

• GAS & OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

GWel 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

table 6.2: oecd north america: projection of renewableelectricity generation capacity under the energy[r]evolution scenarioIN GW

2020

217

52

284

22

77

34

5

693

2040

239

130

469

96

410

118

34

1496

2050

246

153

504

118

577

164

51

1814

Hydro

Biomass

Wind

Geothermal

PV

Solarthermal

Ocean energy

Total

2030

230

90

414

55

227

62

15

1092

2010

192

15

35

6

2

2

0.6

263

2005

187

17

9

3

0.04

0.3

0

217

© V

ISSE

R/G

P

© K

ITZ

MA

N/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

image SUN SETTING OFF THE GULF OF MEXICO.

image image CONCENTRATING SOLARPOWER (CSP) AT A SOLAR FARM INDAGGETT, CALIFORNIA, USA.

62

6

key resu

lts|

OE

CD

NO

RT

H A

ME

RIC

A - C

OS

TS

- HE

AT

ING

& C

OO

LIN

G

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

oecd north america

oecd north america: future costs of electricity generation

Figure 6.23 shows that the introduction of renewable technologiesunder the Energy [R]evolution Scenario slightly increases the costsof electricity generation compared to the Reference Scenario. Thisdifference will be less than 0.4 cents/kWh up to 2020. Because ofthe lower CO2 intensity of electricity generation, by 2020 electricitygeneration costs will become economically favourable under theEnergy [R]evolution Scenario, and by 2050 generation costs will bemore than 5 cents/kWh below those in the Reference Scenario.

Under the Reference Scenario, on the other hand, unchecked growth indemand, the increase in fossil fuel prices and the cost of CO2 emissionsresult in total electricity supply costs rising from today’s $420 billion peryear to more than $1,350 bn in 2050. Figure 6.24 shows that theEnergy [R]evolution Scenario not only complies with OECD NorthAmerica CO2 reduction targets but also helps to stabilise energy costs andrelieve the economic pressure on society. Increasing energy efficiency andshifting energy supply to renewables leads to long term costs forelectricity supply that are one third lower than in the Reference Scenario.

oecd north america: heat and cooling supply

Today, renewables provide 11% of North America’s primary energydemand for heat supply, the main contribution coming from the useof biomass. The lack of district heating networks is a severestructural barrier to the large scale utilisation of geothermal andsolar thermal energy. Dedicated support instruments are required toensure a dynamic development.

In the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, renewables provide 69% of NorthAmerica’s total heating demand in 2050.

• Energy efficiency measures help to reduce the currently growingdemand for heating and cooling, in spite of improving living standards.

• For direct heating, solar collectors, biomass/biogas as well asgeothermal energy are increasingly substituting for fossil fuel-fired systems.

• A shift from coal and oil to natural gas in the remaining conventionalapplications will lead to a further reduction of CO2 emissions.

figure 6.25: oecd north america: development of heat supply structure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

• FOSSIL FUELS

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]figure 6.24: oecd north america: development of total electricity supply costs

•• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION - ‘EFFICIENCY’ MEASURES

• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

• REFERENCE SCENARIO

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

B $/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.23: oecd north america: development of specificelectricity generation costs under the two scenarios(CO2 EMISSION COSTS IMPOSED FROM 2010, WITH AN INCREASE FROM 15 $/TCO2

IN 2010 TO 50 $/TCO2IN 2050)

16

14

12

10

8

6

$¢/kWh 42000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

63

6

key resu

lts|

OE

CD

NO

RT

H A

ME

RIC

A - T

RA

NS

PO

RT

- CO

NS

UM

PT

ION

- CO

2E

MIS

SIO

NS

oecd north america: transport

A key initiative in North America is to introduce incentives to drivesmaller cars, which today are virtually non-existant. In addition, ashift to efficient modes of transport like rail, light rail and bus isimportant, especially in the expanding large metropolitan areas.Together with the rising price of fossil fuels, these changes reduce thehuge growth in car sales projected by the Reference Scenario. In theEnergy [R]evolution Scenario, the car fleet still grows by 20% fromthe year 2000 to 2050. However the energy demand of the transportsector is reduced by 47%. Highly efficient propulsion technology,including hybrid, plug-in hybrid and battery-electric powertrains, willbring large efficiency gains. A quarter of the transport energydemand by 2050 is covered by electricity, 30% by bio fuels.

oecd north america: primary energy consumption

Taking into account the assumptions discussed above, the resultingprimary energy consumption under the Energy [R]evolutionScenario is shown in Figure 6.27. Compared to the ReferenceScenario, overall primary energy demand will be reduced by 53% in2050. Around 66% of the remaining demand in North America willbe covered by renewable energy sources.

oecd north america: development of CO2 emissions

Whilst North America’s emissions of CO2 will increase by 42%under the Reference Scenario, under the Energy [R]evolutionScenario they will decrease from 6,430 million tonnes in 2005 to1,060 m/t in 2050. Annual per capita emissions will drop from14.7 tonnes to 1.8 t. In spite of the phasing out of nuclear energyand increasing demand, CO2 emissions will decrease in theelectricity sector. In the long run efficiency gains and the increaseduse of renewable electricity in the transport sector will even reduceCO2 emissions there. With a share of 46% of total CO2, thetransport sector will be the largest source of emissions in 2050.

figure 6.26: oecd north america: transport under the two scenarios (‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• HYDROGEN

• ELECTRICITY

• BIO FUELS

• NATURAL GAS

• OIL PRODUCTS

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.27: oecd north america: development ofprimary energy consumption under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• OCEAN ENERGY

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

•WIND

• HYDRO

• NATURAL GAS

• CRUDE OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

200,000

180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.28: oecd north america: development of CO2

emissions by sector under the energy [r]evolutionscenario (‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• SAVINGS FROM ‘EFFICIENCY’ & RENEWABLES

•TRANSPORT

• OTHER SECTORS• INDUSTRY

• PUBLIC ELECTRICITY & CHP

10,0009,0008,0007,0006,0005,0004,0003,0002,0001,000

Mil t/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

© V

ISSE

R/G

P

© L

PM

/DR

EA

MST

IME

image CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER(CSP) AT A SOLAR FARM IN DAGGETT,CALIFORNIA, USA.

image AN OFFSHORE DRILLING RIGDAMAGED BY HURRICANE KATRINA,GULF OF MEXICO.

64

6

key resu

lts|

LA

TIN

AM

ER

ICA

- DE

MA

ND

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

latin america

latin america: energy demand by sector

Combining the projections on population development, GDP growthand energy intensity results in future development pathways forLatin America’s energy demand. These are shown in Figure 6.29 forboth the Reference and Energy [R]evolution Scenarios. Under theReference Scenario, total primary energy demand more thandoubles from the current 21,140 PJ/a to 52,300 PJ/a in 2050. Inthe Energy [R]evolution Scenario, a smaller 54% increase oncurrent consumption is expected by 2050, reaching 32,500 PJ/a.

Under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, electricity demand isexpected to increase disproportionately, with households and servicesthe main source of growing consumption. This is due to wider access toenergy services in developing countries (see Figure 6.30). With theexploitation of efficiency measures, however, an even higher increase

can be avoided, leading to electricity demand of around 2,150 TWh/ain 2050. Compared to the Reference Scenario, efficiency measuresavoid the generation of about 660 TWh/a. This reduction can beachieved in particular by introducing highly efficient electronic devices.Employment of solar architecture in both residential and commercialbuildings will help to curb the growing demand for air-conditioning.

Efficiency gains in the heat supply sector are even larger. Under theEnergy [R]evolution Scenario, final demand for heat supply caneven be reduced (see Figure 6.31). Compared to the ReferenceScenario, consumption equivalent to 2,400 PJ/a is avoided throughefficiency gains by 2050. In the transport sector, it is assumedunder the Energy [R]evolution Scenario that energy demand willincrease by a fifth to 6,100 PJ/a by 2050, saving 50% comparedto the Reference Scenario.

figure 6.29: latin america: projection of total final energy demand by sector for the two scenarios

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

REF2010

REF2020

REF2030

REF2040

REF2050

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

figure 6.30: latin america: development of electricity demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO; OTHER SECTORS = SERVICES, HOUSEHOLDS)

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

TWh/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

figure 6.31: latin america: development of heat demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• INDUSTRY• OTHER SECTORS

•TRANSPORT

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

PJ/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

65

6

key resu

lts|

LA

TIN

AM

ER

ICA

- EL

EC

TR

ICIT

Y G

EN

ER

AT

ION

latin america: electricity generation

The development of the electricity supply sector is characterised byan increasing share of renewable electricity. By 2050, 95% of theelectricity produced in Latin America will come from renewableenergy sources. ‘New’ renewables – mainly wind, solar thermalenergy and PV – will contribute more than 60% of electricitygeneration. The installed capacity of renewable energy technologieswill grow from the current 139 GW to 695 GW in 2050 - increasingrenewable capacity by a factor of five within the next 42 years.

Figure 6.33 shows the comparative evolution of the different renewabletechnologies over time. Up to 2020, hydro-power and wind will remainthe main contributors to the growing market share. After 2020, thecontinuing growth of wind will be complemented by electricity frombiomass, photovoltaics and solar thermal (CSP) energy.

table 6.3: latin america: projection of renewableelectricity generation capacity under the energy[r]evolution scenarioIN GW

2020

167

33

47

3

10

3

0.6

264

2040

174

59

179

9

79

9

3

515

2050

179

75

274

16

114

16

7

695

Hydro

Biomass

Wind

Geothermal

PV

Solarthermal

Ocean energy

Total

2030

171

45

88

5

57

5

1

372

2010

159

11

3

1

0.5

0

0

174

2005

135

4

0.2

0.4

0

0

0

139

figure 6.32: latin america: development of electricitygeneration structure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

TWh/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.33: latin america: growth of renewableelectricity generation capacity under the energy[r]evolution scenarioBY INDIVIDUAL SOURCE

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• RES IMPORT

• OCEAN ENERGY

• SOLAR THERMAL

• PV

• GEOTHERMAL

•WIND

• HYDRO

• BIOMASS

• GAS & OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

GWel 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

© G

P/F

LA

VIO

CA

NN

AL

ON

GA

© G

P/F

LA

VIO

CA

NN

AL

ON

GA

image VOLUNTEERS CHECK THE SOLARPANELS ON TOP OF GREENPEACEPOSITIVE ENERGY TRUCK, BRAZIL.

image WIND TURBINES IN FORTALEZ,CEARÀ, BRAZIL.

66

6

key resu

lts|

LA

TIN

AM

ER

ICA

- CO

ST

S - H

EA

TIN

G &

CO

OL

ING

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

latin america

latin america: future costs of electricity generation

Figure 6.34 shows that the introduction of renewable technologiesunder the Energy [R]evolution Scenario significantly decreases thefuture costs of electricity generation compared to the ReferenceScenario. Because of the lower CO2 intensity of electricitygeneration, costs will become economically favourable under theEnergy [R]evolution Scenario. By 2050 generation costs will bemore than 8 cents/kWh below those in the Reference Scenario.

Under the Reference Scenario, on the other hand, unchecked growth indemand, the increase in fossil fuel prices and the cost of CO2 emissionsresult in total electricity supply costs rising from today’s $70 billion peryear to more than $551 bn in 2050. Figure 6.35 shows that the Energy[R]evolution Scenario not only complies with Latin America’s CO2

reduction targets but also helps to stabilise energy costs and relieve theeconomic pressure on society. Increasing energy efficiency and shiftingenergy supply to renewables leads to long term costs for electricitysupply that are one third lower than in the Reference Scenario.

latin america: heat and cooling supply

Today, renewables provide around 40% of primary energy demand forheat supply in Latin America, the main contribution coming from theuse of biomass. The availability of less efficient but cheap appliances isa severe structural barrier to efficiency gains. Large-scale utilisation ofgeothermal and solar thermal energy for heat supply will be largelyrestricted to the industrial sector.

In the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, renewables provide 83% of LatinAmerica’s total heating and cooling demand in 2050.

• Energy efficiency measures restrict the future primary energydemand for heat and cooling supply to a 60% increase, in spiteof improving living standards.

• In the industry sector solar collectors, biomass/biogas as well asgeothermal energy are increasingly replacing conventional fossilfuel-fired heating systems.

• A shift from coal and oil to natural gas in the remaining conventionalapplications leads to a further reduction of CO2 emissions.

figure 6.36: latin america: development of heat supplystructure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

• FOSSIL FUELS

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]figure 6.35: latin america: development of total electricity supply costs

•• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION - ‘EFFICIENCY’ MEASURES

• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

• REFERENCE SCENARIO

600

500

400

300

200

100

B $/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.34: latin america: development of specificelectricity generation costs under the two scenarios(CO2 EMISSION COSTS IMPOSED FROM 2020, WITH AN INCREASE FROM 20 $/TCO2

IN 2020 TO 50 $/TCO2IN 2050)

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

$¢/kWh 02000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

67

6

key resu

lts|

LA

TIN

AM

ER

ICA

- TR

AN

SP

OR

T - C

ON

SU

MP

TIO

N - C

O2

EM

ISS

ION

S

latin america: transport

Despite a huge growth in services, the increase in energy consumptionin the transport sector by 2050 can be limited to 19% under theEnergy [R]evolution Scenario. Current 90% dependency on fossil fuelsis transformed into a 30% contribution from bio fuels and 22% fromelectricity. The market for cars will grow by a factor of five less than inthe Reference Scenario. Measures are taken to keep the car sales splitby segment like its present breakdown, with one third represented bymedium-sized vehicles and more than half by small vehicles.Technological progress increases the share of hybrid vehicles to 65% in2050. Incentives to use more efficient transport modes reduces vehiclekilometre travelled to in average 11.000 km per annum.

latin america: primary energy consumption

Taking into account the assumptions discussed above, the resultingprimary energy consumption under the Energy [R]evolutionScenario is shown in Figure 6.38. Compared to the ReferenceScenario, overall energy demand will be reduced by about 38% in2050. Latin America’s energy demand will increase from 21,000PJ/a to 32,500 PJ/a. Around 70% of this will be covered byrenewable energy sources.

latin america: development of CO2 emissions

Whilst Latin America’s emissions of CO2 will almost triple underthe Reference Scenario, under the Energy [R]evolution Scenariothey will decrease from 830 million tonnes in 2005 to 370 m/t in2050. Annual per capita emissions will drop from 1.8 tonnes to 0.6t. In spite of the phasing out of nuclear energy and increasingdemand, CO2 emissions will decrease in the electricity sector. In thelong run efficiency gains and the increased use of renewableelectricity in vehicles will even reduce CO2 emissions in thetransport sector. With a share of 53% of total CO2 in 2050, thetransport sector will remain the largest source of emissions.

figure 6.37: latin america: transport under the two scenarios (‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• HYDROGEN

• ELECTRICITY

• BIO FUELS

• NATURAL GAS

• OIL PRODUCTS

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.38: latin america: development of primaryenergy consumption under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• OCEAN ENERGY

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

•WIND

• HYDRO

• NATURAL GAS

• CRUDE OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.39: latin america: development of CO2 emissionsby sector under the energy [r]evolution scenario(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• SAVINGS FROM ‘EFFICIENCY’ & RENEWABLES

•TRANSPORT

• OTHER SECTORS• INDUSTRY

• PUBLIC ELECTRICITY & CHP

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

Mil t/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

© G

P/F

LAV

IO C

AN

NA

LON

GA

© G

P/A

NA

CL

AU

DIA

JA

TAH

Yimage GROUP OF YOUNG PEOPLE FEEL THE HEAT GENERATED BY A SOLAR COOKING STOVE IN BRAZIL.

image IN 2005 THE WORST DROUGHT IN MORE THAN 40 YEARS DAMAGED THE WORLD’SLARGEST RAIN FOREST IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON, WITH WILDFIRES BREAKING OUT,POLLUTED DRINKING WATER AND THE DEATH OF MILLIONS FISH AS STREAMS DRY UP.

68

6

key resu

lts|

OE

CD

EU

RO

PE

- DE

MA

ND

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

oecd europe

oecd europe: energy demand by sector

The future development pathways for Europe’s energy demand areshown in Figure 6.40 for both the Reference and Energy [R]evolutionScenarios. Under the Reference Scenario, total primary energy demandin OECD Europe increases by more than 10% from the current81,500 PJ/a to 90,300 PJ/a in 2050. In the Energy [R]evolutionScenario, demand decreases by 40% compared to currentconsumption, reaching 48,900 PJ/a by the end of the scenario period.

Under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, electricity demand in allthree sectors is expected to decrease after 2015 (see Figure 6.41).Because of the growing use of electric vehicles, however, electricityuse for transport increases to 3,520 TWh/a in the year 2050.Compared to the Reference Scenario, efficiency measures avoid thegeneration of about 1,460 TWh/a. This reduction in energy demandcan be achieved in particular by introducing highly efficientelectronic devices using the best available technology.

Efficiency gains in the heat supply sector are even larger. Under theEnergy [R]evolution Scenario, final demand for heat supply can even bereduced (see Figure 6.42). Compared to the Reference Scenario,consumption equivalent to 7,350 PJ/a is avoided through efficiency gainsby 2050. As a result of energy-related renovation of the existing stock ofresidential buildings, as well as the introduction of low energy standardsand new ‘passive houses’, enjoyment of the same comfort and energyservices will be accompanied by a much lower future energy demand.

In the transport sector, it is assumed under the Energy [R]evolutionScenario that energy demand will decrease by almost half to 8700PJ/a by 2050, saving 58% compared to the Reference Scenario. Thisreduction can be achieved by the introduction of highly efficientvehicles, by shifting the transport of goods from road to rail and bychanges in mobility-related behaviour patterns.

figure 6.40: oecd europe: projection of total final energy demand by sector for the two scenarios

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

REF2010

REF2020

REF2030

REF2040

REF2050

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

PJ/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

figure 6.41: oecd europe: development of electricity demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO; OTHER SECTORS = SERVICES, HOUSEHOLDS)

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

TWh/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

figure 6.42: oecd europe: development of heat demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• INDUSTRY• OTHER SECTORS

•TRANSPORT

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

69

6

key resu

lts|

OE

CD

EU

RO

PE

- EL

EC

TR

ICIT

Y G

EN

ER

AT

ION

oecd europe: electricity generation

The development of the electricity supply sector is characterised bya dynamically growing renewable energy market. This willcompensate for the phasing out of nuclear energy and reduce thenumber of fossil fuel-fired power plants required for gridstabilisation. By 2050, 86% of the electricity produced in OECDEurope will come from renewable energy sources. ‘New’ renewables– mainly wind, solar thermal energy and PV – will contribute 67%.

The installed capacity of renewable energy technologies will growfrom the current 250 GW to 1,030 GW in 2050, increasingrenewables capacity by a factor of four. Figure 6.44 shows theevolution of the different renewable technologies. Up to 2020,hydro-power and wind will remain the main contributors to thegrowing market share. After 2020, the continuing growth of windwill be complemented by electricity from biomass, photovoltaicsand solar thermal (CSP) energy.

None of these numbers describe a maximum feasibility, but apossible balanced approach. With the right policy development, thesolar industry believes that a much further uptake could happen.This is particularly true for concentrated solar power (CSP) whichcould unfold to 30GW already by 2020 and more than 120GW in2050. The photovoltaic industry believes in a possible electricitygeneration capacity of 350GW by 2020 in Europe alone, assumingthe necessary policy changes.

table 6.4: oecd europe: projection of renewableelectricity generation capacity under the energy[r]evolution scenarioIN GW 2020

179

61

215

3

96

9

1

564

2040

182

82

309

18

287

27

10

915

2050

182

88

333

26

357

31

15

1033

Hydro

Biomass

Wind

Geothermal

PV

Solarthermal

Ocean energy

Total

2030

181

69

254

8

187

17

5

720

2010

174

37

87

1.5

10

0.7

0

312

2005

184

22

42

1

1.5

0

0

251

figure 6.43: oecd europe: development of electricitygeneration structure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

TWh/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.44: oecd europe: growth of renewable electricity generation capacity under the energy[r]evolution scenarioBY INDIVIDUAL SOURCE

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• RES IMPORT

• OCEAN ENERGY

• SOLAR THERMAL

• PV

• GEOTHERMAL

•WIND

• HYDRO

• BIOMASS

• GAS & OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

GWel 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

© G

P/D

AV

ISO

N

© L

AN

GR

OC

K/Z

EN

IT/G

P

image image OFFSHORE WINDFARM,MIDDELGRUNDEN, COPENHAGEN,DENMARK.

image MAN USING METAL GRINDER ONPART OF A WIND TURBINE MAST IN THEVESTAS FACTORY, CAMBELTOWN,SCOTLAND, GREAT BRITAIN.

70

6

key resu

lts|

OE

CD

EU

RO

PE

- CO

ST

S - H

EA

TIN

G &

CO

OL

ING

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

oecd europe

oecd europe: future costs of electricity generation

Figure 6.45 shows that the introduction of renewable technologiesunder the Energy [R]evolution Scenario slightly increases the costs ofelectricity generation compared to the Reference Scenario. Thisdifference will be less than 0.4 cents/kWh up to 2020, however.Because of the lower CO2 intensity of electricity generation, electricitygeneration costs will become economically favourable under theEnergy [R]evolution Scenario by 2020, and by 2050 costs will bemore than 3 cents/kWh below those in the Reference Scenario.

Under the Reference Scenario, the unchecked growth in demand, theincrease in fossil fuel prices and the cost of CO2 emissions result intotal electricity supply costs rising from today’s $330 billion per yearto more than $800 bn in 2050. Figure 6.46 shows that the Energy[R]evolution Scenario not only complies with OECD Europe CO2

reduction targets but also helps to stabilise energy costs and relieve theeconomic pressure on society. Increasing energy efficiency and shiftingenergy supply to renewables leads to long term costs for electricitysupply that are one third lower than in the Reference Scenario.

oecd europe: heat and cooling supply

Renewables currently provide 11% of OECD Europe’s primaryenergy demand for heat supply, the main contribution coming fromthe use of biomass. The lack of district heating networks is a severestructural barrier to the large scale utilisation of geothermal andsolar thermal energy.

In the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, renewables provide 61% ofOECD Europe’s total heating and cooling demand in 2050.

• Energy efficiency measures can decrease the current demand forheat supply by 18%, in spite of improving living standards.

• For direct heating, solar collectors, biomass/biogas as well asgeothermal energy are increasingly substituting for fossil fuel-fired systems.

figure 6.47: oecd europe: development of heat supplystructure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

• FOSSIL FUELS

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]figure 6.46: oecd europe: development of total electricity supply costs

•• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION - ‘EFFICIENCY’ MEASURES

• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

• REFERENCE SCENARIO

1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

B $/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.45: oecd europe: development of specificelectricity generation costs under the two scenarios(CO2 EMISSION COSTS IMPOSED FROM 2010, WITH AN INCREASE FROM 15 $/TCO2

IN 2010 TO 50 $/TCO2IN 2050)

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

$¢/kWh 52000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

71

6

key resu

lts|

OE

CD

EU

RO

PE

- TR

AN

SP

OR

T - C

ON

SU

MP

TIO

N - C

O2

EM

ISS

ION

S

oecd europe: transport

In the transport sector, it is assumed under the Energy [R]evolutionScenario that energy demand will decrease by almost half to 8,700PJ/a by 2050, saving 57% compared to the Reference Scenario. Thisreduction can be achieved by the introduction of highly efficient vehicles,by shifting the transport of goods from road to rail and by changes inbehaviour patterns. By implementing attractive alternatives to individualcars, the car fleet will grow more slowly than in the Reference Scenario,reaching 235 million cars in 2050. A slight shift towards smaller cars -triggered by economic incentives coupled with a significant movetowards electrified power trains and a reduction of vehicle kilometrestravelled by 0.25% per year - leads to 60% final energy savings. In2050, electricity will provide 35% of the transport sector’s total energydemand, while 21% of the demand will be covered by bio fuels.

oecd europe: primary energy consumption

Taking into account the assumptions discussed above, the resultingprimary energy consumption under the Energy [R]evolution Scenariois shown in Figure 6.49. Compared to the Reference Scenario, overallenergy demand will be reduced by 46% in 2050. Around 60% of theremaining demand will be covered by renewable energy sources.

oecd europe: development of CO2 emissions

While CO2 emissions in OECD Europe will increase by 12% underthe Reference Scenario by 2050, in the Energy [R]evolution Scenariothey will decrease from 4,060 million tonnes in 2005 to 880 m/t in2050. Annual per capita emissions will drop from 7.6 tonnes to 1.6t. In spite of the phasing out of nuclear energy and increasingdemand, CO2 emissions will decrease in the electricity sector. In thelong run efficiency gains and the increased use of renewableelectricity in vehicles will reduce emissions in the transport sector.With a share of 14% of total CO2 in 2050, the power sector willdrop below transport as the largest source of emissions.

figure 6.48: oecd europe: transport under the two scenarios (‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• HYDROGEN

• ELECTRICITY

• BIO FUELS

• NATURAL GAS

• OIL PRODUCTS

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.49: oecd europe: development of primaryenergy consumption under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• RES ELECTRICITY EXPORT

• OCEAN ENERGY

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

•WIND

• HYDRO

• NATURAL GAS

• CRUDE OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.50: oecd europe: development of CO2 emissions by sector under the energy [r]evolution scenario (‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• SAVINGS FROM ‘EFFICIENCY’ & RENEWABLES

•TRANSPORT

• OTHER SECTORS• INDUSTRY

• PUBLIC ELECTRICITY & CHP

5,0004,5004,0003,5003,0002,5002,0001,5001,000

500Mil t/a 0

E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

© G

P/C

OB

BIN

G

© R

ED

ON

DO

/GP

image PLANT NEAR REYKJAVIK WHEREENERGY IS PRODUCED FROM THEGEOTHERMAL ACTIVITY.

image WORKERS EXAMINE PARABOLICTROUGH COLLECTORS IN THE PS10 SOLARTOWER PLANT AT SAN LUCAR LA MAYOROUTSIDE SEVILLE, SPAIN, 2008.

72

6

key resu

lts|

AF

RIC

A - D

EM

AN

D

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

africa

africa: energy demand by sector

Future development pathways for Africa’s energy demand are shown inFigure 6.51 for both the Reference and Energy [R]evolution Scenarios.Under the Reference Scenario, total primary energy demand more thandoubles from the current 25,200 PJ/a to 53,300 PJ/a in 2050. In theEnergy [R]evolution Scenario, a much smaller 50% increase oncurrent consumption is expected by 2050 to reach 38,300 PJ/a.

Under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, electricity demand in Africais expected to increase disproportionately, with households andservices the main source of growing consumption (see Figure 6.52).With the exploitation of efficiency measures, however, an even higherincrease can be avoided, leading to electricity demand of around1,340 TWh/a in the year 2050. Compared to the Reference Scenario,efficiency measures avoid the generation of about 620 TWh/a.

Efficiency gains in the heat supply sector are also significant. Underthe Energy [R]evolution Scenario, final demand for heat supply caneven be reduced (see Figure 6.53). Compared to the ReferenceScenario, consumption equivalent to 550 PJ/a is avoided throughefficiency gains by 2050.

In the transport sector, it is assumed under the Energy [R]evolutionScenario that energy demand will almost double to 5,300 PJ/a by2050, still saving 46% compared to the Reference Scenario. Thisreduction can be achieved by the introduction of highly efficientvehicles, by shifting the transport of goods from road to rail and bychanges in mobility-related behaviour.

figure 6.51: africa: projection of total final energy demand by sector for the two scenarios

REF2005

REF2010

REF2020

REF2030

REF2040

REF2050

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

figure 6.52: africa: development of electricity demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO; OTHER SECTORS = SERVICES, HOUSEHOLDS)

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

TWh/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

figure 6.53: africa: development of heat demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• INDUSTRY• OTHER SECTORS

•TRANSPORT

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

PJ/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 0

73

6

key resu

lts|

AF

RIC

A - E

LE

CT

RIC

ITY

GE

NE

RA

TIO

N

africa: electricity generation

The development of the electricity supply sector is characterised bya dynamically growing renewable energy market and an increasingshare of renewable electricity. By 2050, 73% of the electricityproduced in Africa will come from renewable energy sources. Amain driver for the development of solar power generationcapacities will be the export of solar electricity to OECD Europe.‘New’ renewables – mainly wind, solar thermal energy and PV –will contribute more than 60% of electricity generation.

The installed capacity of renewable energy technologies will growfrom the current 21 GW to 388 GW in 2050, increasing renewablecapacity by a factor of 18 over the next 42 years. More than 60GW CSP plants will produce electricity for export to Europe.

Figure 6.55 shows the comparative evolution of different renewabletechnologies over time. Up to 2020, hydro-power and wind will remainthe main contributors to the growing market share. After 2020, thecontinuing growth of wind will be complemented by electricity frombiomass, photovoltaics and solar thermal (CSP) energy.

table 6.5: africa: projection of renewable electricitygeneration capacity under the energy [r]evolution scenarioIN GW

2020

30

3

10

1

8

10

0.6

62

2040

39

7

31

4

105

58

3

246

2050

45

8

51

6

175

100

4

388

Hydro

Biomass

Wind

Geothermal

PV

Solarthermal

Ocean energy

Total

2030

34

5

21

3

55

14

2

134

2010

24

0.6

1.4

0.2

0.5

1

0

28

2005

21

0.1

0.4

0.1

0

0

0

21

figure 6.54: africa: development of electricitygeneration structure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

TWh/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.55: africa: growth of renewable electricitygeneration capacity under the energy [r]evolution scenarioBY INDIVIDUAL SOURCE

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• RES IMPORT

• OCEAN ENERGY

• SOLAR THERMAL

• PV

• GEOTHERMAL

•WIND

• HYDRO

• BIOMASS

• GAS & OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

GWel 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

© C

LIV

E S

HIR

LE

Y/G

P

© P

. AL

LE

N/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

image GARIEP DAM, FREE STATE, SOUTH AFRICA.

image WOMEN FARMERS FROM LILONGWE, MALAWI STAND IN THEIR DRY, BARRENFIELDS CARRYING ON THEIR HEADS AID ORGANISATION HANDOUTS. THIS AREA,THOUGH EXTREMELY POOR HAS BEEN SELF-SUFFICIENT WITH FOOD. NOW THESEWOMEN’S CHILDREN ARE SUFFERING FROM MALNUTRITION.

74

6

key resu

lts|

AF

RIC

A - C

OS

TS

- HE

AT

ING

& C

OO

LIN

G

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

africa

africa: future costs of electricity generation

Figure 6.56 shows that the introduction of renewable technologiesunder the Energy [R]evolution Scenario significantly decreases thefuture costs of electricity generation. Because of the lower CO2

intensity, electricity generation costs will steadily become moreeconomic under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario and by 2050 willbe more than 9 cents/kWh below those in the Reference Scenario.

Under the Reference Scenario, by contrast, unchecked demandgrowth, the increase in fossil fuel prices and the cost of CO2

emissions result in total electricity supply costs rising from today’s$59 billion per year to more than $468 bn in 2050. Figure 6.57shows that the Energy [R]evolution Scenario not only complies withAfrica’s CO2 reduction targets but also helps to stabilise energycosts. Increasing energy efficiency and shifting energy supply torenewables leads to long term costs for electricity supply that areone third lower than in the Reference Scenario.

africa: heat and cooling supply

Today, renewables provide around 75% of primary energy demand forheat supply in Africa, the main contribution coming from the use ofbiomass. The availability of less efficient but cheap appliances is asevere structural barrier to efficiency gains. Large-scale utilisation ofgeothermal and solar thermal energy for heat supply is restricted to theindustrial sector. Dedicated support instruments are required to ensurea continuously dynamic development of renewables in the heat market.

In the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, renewables provide 72% ofAfrica’s total heating and cooling demand in 2050.

• Energy efficiency measures can restrict the future energy demandfor heat and cooling supply to a 50% increase, in spite ofimproving living standards.

• In the industry sector solar collectors, biomass/biogas as well asgeothermal energy are increasingly substituting for conventionalfossil-fired heating systems.

• A shift from coal and oil to natural gas in the remaining conventionalapplications leads to a further reduction of CO2 emissions.

figure 6.58: africa: development of heat supplystructure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

• FOSSIL FUELS

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.57: africa: development of total electricity supply costs

•• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION - ‘EFFICIENCY’ MEASURES

• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

• REFERENCE SCENARIO

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

B $/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.56: africa: development of specific electricitygeneration costs under the two scenarios(CO2 EMISSION COSTS IMPOSED FROM 2020, WITH AN INCREASE FROM 20 $/TCO2

IN 2020 TO 50 $/TCO2IN 2050)

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

$¢/kWh 42000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

75

6

key resu

lts|

AF

RIC

A - T

RA

NS

PO

RT

- CO

NS

UM

PT

ION

- CO

2E

MIS

SIO

NS

africa: transport

In the transport sector, it is assumed under the Energy [R]evolutionScenario that energy demand will almost double to 5,300 PJ/a by 2050,still saving 46% compared to the Reference Scenario. This reduction canbe achieved by the introduction of highly efficient vehicles, by shifting thetransport of goods from road to rail and by changes in mobility-relatedbehaviour. The African car fleet is projected to grow by a factor of 6 toroughly 100 million vehicles. Development of fuel efficiency is delayed by20 years compared to other world regions for economic reasons. By2050, Africa will still have the lowest average fuel consumption.

africa: primary energy consumption

Taking into account the assumptions discussed above, the resultingprimary energy consumption under the Energy [R]evolution Scenariois shown in Figure 6.60. Compared to the Reference Scenario,overall energy demand will be reduced by about 30% in 2050.Under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, Africa’s energy demandwill increase from 25,200 PJ/a to 38,300 PJ/a in 2050. Around56% of this demand will be covered by renewable energy sources.

africa: development of CO2 emissions

While Africa’s emissions of CO2 will almost triple under the ReferenceScenario, under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario they will increasefrom 780 million tonnes in 2003 to 895 m/t in 2050. Annual percapita emissions will drop from 0.8 tonnes to 0.45 t. In spite ofincreasing demand, CO2 emissions will decrease in the electricitysector. In the long run efficiency gains and the increased use of biofuels and electricity will reduce CO2 emissions in the transport sector.With a share of 28% of total CO2 in 2050, the power sector will dropbelow transport as the largest source of emissions.

figure 6.59: africa: transport under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• HYDROGEN

• ELECTRICITY

• BIO FUELS

• NATURAL GAS

• OIL PRODUCTS

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.60: africa: development of primary energyconsumption under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• OCEAN ENERGY

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

•WIND

• HYDRO

• NATURAL GAS

• CRUDE OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.61: africa: development of CO2 emissions by sector under the energy [r]evolution scenario (‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• SAVINGS FROM ‘EFFICIENCY’ & RENEWABLES

•TRANSPORT

• OTHER SECTORS• INDUSTRY

• PUBLIC ELECTRICITY & CHP

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

Mil t/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

© A

UST

IN/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

© G

P/S

HIR

LE

Y©

PG

-IM

AG

ES

/DR

EA

MST

IMEimage FLOWING WATERS OF THE

TUGELA RIVER IN NORTHERNDRAKENSBERG IN SOUTH AFRICA.

image A SMALL HYDRO ELECTRICALTERNATOR MAKES ELECTRICITY FORA SMALL AFRICAN TOWN.

76

6

key resu

lts|

MID

DL

E E

AS

T - D

EM

AN

D

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

middle east

middle east: energy demand by sector

The future development pathways for the Middle East’s energydemand are shown in Figure 6.62 for both the Reference andEnergy [R]evolution Scenarios. Under the Reference Scenario, totalprimary energy demand more than doubles from the current21,400 PJ/a to 54,980 PJ/a in 2050. In the Energy [R]evolutionScenario, a much smaller 28% increase on current consumption isexpected by 2050, reaching 27,600 PJ/a.

Under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, electricity demand isexpected to increase disproportionately, with households andservices the main source of growing consumption (see Figure 6.63),leading to an electricity demand of around 1,620 TWh/a in the year2050. Compared to the Reference Scenario, efficiency measuresavoid the generation of about 390 TWh/a.

Efficiency gains in the heat supply sector are even larger. Under theEnergy [R]evolution Scenario (see Figure 6.64), consumptionequivalent to 2,650 PJ/a is avoided through efficiency gains by 2050.

In the transport sector, it is assumed under the Energy [R]evolutionScenario that energy demand will be slightly reduced compared totoday’s level, reaching 3,990 PJ/a by 2050, a saving of 49%compared to the Reference Scenario. This reduction can beachieved by the introduction of highly efficient vehicles, by shiftingthe transport of goods from road to rail and by changes in mobility-related behaviour patterns.

figure 6.62: middle east: projection of total final energy demand by sector for the two scenarios

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

REF2010

REF2020

REF2030

REF2040

REF2050

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

figure 6.63: middle east: development of electricitydemand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO; OTHER SECTORS = SERVICES, HOUSEHOLDS)

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

TWh/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

figure 6.64: middle east: development of heat demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• INDUSTRY• OTHER SECTORS

•TRANSPORT

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

PJ/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

77

6

key resu

lts|

MID

DL

E E

AS

T - E

LE

CT

RIC

ITY

GE

NE

RA

TIO

N

middle east: electricity generation

The development of the electricity supply sector is characterised byan increasing share of renewable electricity. By 2050, 95% of theelectricity produced in the Middle East will come from renewableenergy sources. ‘New’ renewables – mainly wind, solar thermal energyand PV – will contribute about 90% of electricity generation.

The installed capacity of renewable energy technologies will growfrom the current 10 GW to 556 GW in 2050, a very large increaseover the next 42 years requiring political support and well-designedpolicy instruments. Figure 6.66 shows the comparative evolution ofthe different technologies over the period up to 2050.

table 6.6: middle east: projection of renewableelectricity generation capacity under the energy[r]evolution scenario IN GW

2020

18

3

25

2

3

10

0

62

2040

20

6

72

8

128

100

1

335

2050

20

8

87

12

233

194

1

556

Hydro

Biomass

Wind

Geothermal

PV

Solarthermal

Ocean energy

Total

2030

20

4

61

5

31

48

0

168

2010

12

0.4

0.9

0

0.3

0.8

0

14

2005

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

figure 6.65: middle east: development of electricitygeneration structure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

TWh/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.66: middle east: growth of renewableelectricity generation capacity under the energy[r]evolution scenarioBY INDIVIDUAL SOURCE

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• RES IMPORT

• OCEAN ENERGY

• SOLAR THERMAL

• PV

• GEOTHERMAL

•WIND

• HYDRO

• BIOMASS

• GAS & OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

600

500

400

300

200

100

GWel 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

© N

. AR

MO

NN

/DR

EA

MST

IME

© Y

. TA

FL

EV

/DR

EA

MST

IME

image A LARGE POWER PLANT ALONGTHE ROCKY COASTLINE IN CAESAREA,ISRAEL.

image WIND TURBINES IN THE GOLANHEIGHTS IN ISRAEL.

78

6

key resu

lts|

MID

DL

E E

AS

T - C

OS

TS

- HE

AT

ING

& C

OO

LIN

G

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

middle east

middle east: future costs of electricity generation

Figure 6.67 shows that the introduction of renewable technologiesunder the Energy [R]evolution Scenario will lead to a significantreduction of electricity generation costs. Under the ReferenceScenario, on the other hand, the unchecked growth in demand,increase in fossil fuel prices and the cost of CO2 emissions result intotal electricity supply costs rising from today’s $133 billion per yearto more than $870 bn in 2050. Figure 6.68 shows that the Energy[R]evolution Scenario not only meets the Middle East’s CO2 reductiontargets but also helps to stabilise energy costs. Long term costs forelectricity supply are one third lower than in the Reference Scenario.

middle east: heat and cooling supply

Renewables currently provide only 1% of primary energy demand forheat and cooling in the Middle East, the main contribution comingfrom the use of biomass and solar collectors. Dedicated supportinstruments are required to ensure a continuously dynamicdevelopment of renewables in the heat market.

In the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, renewables satisfy 83% of theMiddle East’s total heating and cooling demand in 2050.

• Energy efficiency measures can restrict the future primary energydemand for heat and cooling supply to a doubling rather thantripling, in spite of improving living standards.

• In the industry sector solar collectors, biomass/biogas as well asgeothermal energy are increasingly substituting for conventionalfossil-fired heating systems.

figure 6.69: middle east: development of heat supplystructure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

• FOSSIL FUELS

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]figure 6.68: middle east: development of total electricity supply costs

•• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION - ‘EFFICIENCY’ MEASURES

• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

• REFERENCE SCENARIO

1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

B $/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.67: middle east: development of specificelectricity generation costs under the two scenarios(CO2 EMISSION COSTS IMPOSED FROM 2020, WITH AN INCREASE FROM 20 $/TCO2

IN 2020 TO 50 $/TCO2IN 2050)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

$¢/kWh 02000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

79

6

key resu

lts|

MID

DL

E E

AS

T - T

RA

NS

PO

RT

- CO

NS

UM

PT

ION

- CO

2E

MIS

SIO

NS

middle east: transport

Traditionally, in a region with major oil resources, transport has beenpowered 100% by fossil fuels. Rising prices, together with otherincentives, lead to a projected share of 27% of renewable electricity inthis sector. Highly efficient electrified cars – plug-in-hybrid and batteryvehicles – contribute to a total energy saving of 16%, although the carfleet is still projected to grow by a factor of 5 by 2050. The furtherpromotion of energy efficient transport modes will help to reduceannual vehicle kilometres travelled by 0.25% p.a.

middle east: primary energy consumption

Taking into account these assumptions, the resulting primary energyconsumption under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario is shown inFigure 6.71. Compared to the Reference Scenario, overall energydemand will be reduced by more than 50% in 2050., so the MiddleEast’s demand will increase from 21,420 PJ/a to just 27,590 PJ/a.Over 62% of this will be covered by renewable energy sources.

middle east: development of CO2 emissions

While CO2 emissions in the Middle East will triple under theReference Scenario by 2050, and are thus far removed from asustainable development path, under the Energy [R]evolutionScenario they will decrease from 1,170 million tonnes in 2005 to390 m/t in 2050. Annual per capita emissions will drop from 6.2tonnes/capita to 1.1 t. In spite of an increasing electricity demand,CO2 emissions will decrease strongly in the electricity sector. In thelong run efficiency gains and the increased use of renewableelectricity in vehicles will even reduce CO2 emissions in thetransport sector.

figure 6.70: middle east: transport under the two scenarios (‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• HYDROGEN

• ELECTRICITY

• BIO FUELS

• NATURAL GAS

• OIL PRODUCTS

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.71: middle east: development of primaryenergy consumption under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• OCEAN ENERGY

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

•WIND

• HYDRO

• NATURAL GAS

• CRUDE OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.72: middle east: development of CO2 emissions by sector under the energy [r]evolution scenario (‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• SAVINGS FROM ‘EFFICIENCY’ & RENEWABLES

•TRANSPORT

• OTHER SECTORS• INDUSTRY

• PUBLIC ELECTRICITY & CHP

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

Mill t/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

© O

. ÇA

M/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

© S

. WE

IWE

I/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

image THE BAHRAIN WORLD TRADECENTER IN MANAMA GENERATES PART OF ITS OWN ENERGY USING WIND TURBINES.

image SUBURBS OF DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES.

80

6

key resu

lts|

TR

AN

SIT

ION

EC

ON

OM

IES

- DE

MA

ND

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

transition economies

transition economies: energy demand by sector

Future development pathways for energy demand in the TransitionEconomies are shown in Figure 6.73 for both the Reference andEnergy [R]evolution Scenarios. Under the Reference Scenario, totalprimary energy demand increases by 38 % from the current46,250 PJ/a to 63,930 PJ/a in 2050. In the Energy [R]evolutionScenario, demand decreases by 23% compared to currentconsumption and is expected to reach 35,760 PJ/a by 2050.

Under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, electricity demand isexpected to increase disproportionately, with transport and thehouseholds and services sectors being the main source of growingconsumption (see Figure 6.74). With the exploitation of efficiencymeasures, however, an even higher increase can be avoided, leading

to electricity demand of around 1,550 TWh/a in 2050. Comparedto the Reference Scenario, efficiency measures avoid the generationof about 560 TWh/a.

Efficiency gains in the heat supply sector are even larger. Under theEnergy [R]evolution Scenario, final demand for heat supply caneven be reduced after 2030 (see Figure 6.75). Compared to theReference Scenario, consumption equivalent to 5,990 PJ/a isavoided through efficiency gains.

In the transport sector, it is assumed under the Energy [R]evolutionScenario that energy demand will decrease by 28% to 4,240 PJ/aby 2050, saving 57% compared to the Reference Scenario.

figure 6.73: transition economies: projection of total final energy demand by sector for the two scenarios

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

REF2010

REF2020

REF2030

REF2040

REF2050

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

figure 6.75: transition economies: development of heat demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• INDUSTRY• OTHER SECTORS

•TRANSPORT

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

figure 6.74: transition economies: development of electricity demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO; OTHER SECTORS = SERVICES, HOUSEHOLDS)

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

TWh/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

81

6

key resu

lts|

TR

AN

SIT

ION

EC

ON

OM

IES

- EL

EC

TR

ICIT

Y G

EN

ER

AT

ION

transition economies: electricity generation

The development of the electricity supply sector is characterised bya growing renewable energy market. This will compensate for thephasing out of nuclear energy and reduce the number of fossil fuel-fired power plants required for grid stabilisation. By 2050, 81% ofthe electricity produced in the Transition Economy countries willcome from renewable energy sources. ‘New’ renewables – mainlywind, solar thermal energy and PV – will contribute 65% ofelectricity generation.

The installed capacity of renewable energy technologies will growfrom the current 93 GW to 550 GW in 2050, increasing capacityby a factor of six over the next 42 years. This will require politicalsupport and well-designed policy instruments.

Figure 6.77 shows the expansion rate of the different renewabletechnologies over time. Up to 2020, hydro-power and wind willremain the main contributors. After 2020, the continuing growth ofwind will be complemented by electricity from biomass,photovoltaics and geothermal energy.

table 6.7: transition economies: projection of renewable electricity generation capacity under the energy [r]evolution scenarioIN GW 2020

103

40

10

2

2

0

4

162

2040

109

61

169

16

100

3

7

466

2050

110

68

245

17

100

3

9

551

Hydro

Biomass

Wind

Geothermal

PV

Solarthermal

Ocean energy

Total

2030

106

49

72

8

42

2

6

285

2010

94

9

0.4

0.3

0.1

0

0

104

2005

89

3

0.1

0.1

0

0

0

93

figure 6.76: transition economies: development of electricity generation structure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

TWh/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.77: transition economies: growth of renewableelectricity generation capacity under the energy[r]evolution scenario BY INDIVIDUAL SOURCE

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• RES IMPORT

• OCEAN ENERGY

• SOLAR THERMAL

• PV

• GEOTHERMAL

•WIND

• HYDRO

• BIOMASS

• GAS & OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

600

500

400

300

200

100

GWel 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

© G

P/V

AD

IM K

AN

TO

R

© G

P/V

AD

IM K

AN

TO

R

image LAKE BAIKAL, RUSSIA.

image SOLAR PANELS IN A NATURERESERVE IN CAUCASUSU, RUSSIA.

82

6

key resu

lts|

TR

AN

SIT

ION

EC

ON

OM

IES

- CO

ST

S - H

EA

TIN

G &

CO

OL

ING

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

transition economies

transition economies: future costs of electricity generation

Figure 6.78 shows that the introduction of renewable technologies underthe Energy [R]evolution Scenario slightly increases the costs of electricitygeneration compared to the Reference Scenario. This difference will beabout 0.5 cents/kWh in 2015. Because of the lower CO2 intensity ofelectricity generation, by 2020 these costs will become economicallyfavourable under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario and by 2050 will bemore than 5 cents/kWh below those in the Reference Scenario.

Due to growing demand, there will be a significant increase in society’sexpenditure on electricity supply. Under the Reference Scenario, totalelectricity supply costs will rise from today’s $190 billion per year to$520 bn in 2050. Figure 6.79 shows that the Energy [R]evolutionScenario not only complies with the Transition Economies’ CO2

reduction targets but also helps to stabilise energy costs and relievethe economic pressure on society. Long term costs for electricitysupply are one third lower than in the Reference Scenario.

transition economies: heat and cooling supply

Renewables currently provide just 3% of the Transition Economies’primary energy demand for heat supply, the main contribution comingfrom the use of biomass. The lack of available infrastructure for modernand efficient district heating networks is a barrier to the large scaleutilisation of biomass, geothermal and solar thermal energy. Dedicatedsupport instruments are required to ensure a dynamic development.

In the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, renewables provide 75% of theTransition Economies’ total heating demand in 2050.

• Energy efficiency measures can moderate the increase in heatdemand, and in spite of improving living standards after 2030lead to a decrease in demand, which in 2050 is slightly lowerthan at present.

• For direct heating, solar collectors, biomass/biogas as well asgeothermal energy are increasingly substituting for fossil fuel-fired systems.

• A shift from coal and oil to natural gas in the remaining conventionalapplications will lead to a further reduction of CO2 emissions.

figure 6.80: transition economies: development of heat supply structure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

• FOSSIL FUELS

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.79: transition economies: development of total electricity supply costs

•• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION - ‘EFFICIENCY’ MEASURES

• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

• REFERENCE SCENARIO

600

500

400

300

200

100

B $/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.78: transition economies: development of specificelectricity generation costs under the two scenarios(CO2 EMISSION COSTS IMPOSED FROM 2020, WITH AN INCREASE FROM 20 $/TCO2

IN 2020 TO 50 $/TCO2IN 2050)

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

$¢/kWh 02000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

83

6

key resu

lts|

TR

AN

SIT

ION

EC

ON

OM

IES

- TR

AN

SP

OR

T - C

ON

SU

MP

TIO

N - C

O2

EM

ISS

ION

S

transition economies: transport

Development of the transport sector is characterised by thediversification of energy sources towards bio fuels (9%) and electricity(28%) up to 2050. The time taken to reach reference target levels forefficient vehicles is delayed by ten years compared to the most otherindustrialised countries. Although the light duty vehicle stock will tripleby 2050, increasingly attractive and highly efficient suburban and longdistance rail services, as well as growing fuel prices, will lead to thevehicle kilometres travelled falling by 10% between 2010 and 2050.These measures and incentives, together with highly efficient cars, willresult in nearly 30% energy savings in the transport sector.

transition economies: primary energy consumption

Taking into account the changes outlined above, the resulting primaryenergy consumption under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario is shownin Figure 6.82. Compared to the Reference Scenario, overall energydemand will be reduced by 44% in 2050. Around 60% of theremaining demand will be covered by renewable energy sources.

transition economies: development of CO2 emissions

Whilst emissions of CO2 will increase by 11% under the ReferenceScenario, under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario they willdecrease from 2,380 million tonnes in 2005 to 540 m/t in 2050.Annual per capita emissions will drop from 7.0 tonnes to 1.8 t. Inspite of the phasing out of nuclear energy and increasing demand,CO2 emissions will decrease in the electricity sector.

figure 6.81: transition economies: transport under the two scenarios (‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• HYDROGEN

• ELECTRICITY

• BIO FUELS

• NATURAL GAS

• OIL PRODUCTS

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.82: transition economies: development ofprimary energy consumption under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• OCEAN ENERGY

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

•WIND

• HYDRO

• NATURAL GAS

• CRUDE OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.83: transition economies: development of CO2 emissions by sector under the energy[r]evolution scenario (‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• SAVINGS FROM ‘EFFICIENCY’ & RENEWABLES

•TRANSPORT

• OTHER SECTORS• INDUSTRY

• PUBLIC ELECTRICITY & CHP

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

Mil t/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

© G

P/S

HIR

LE

Y

© G

P/M

IZU

KO

SH

I

image CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR POWERSTATION, UKRAINE.

image THE SUN OVER LAKE BAIKAL,RUSSIA.

84

6

key resu

lts|

IND

IA - D

EM

AN

D

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

india

india: energy demand by sector

The potential future development pathways for India’s primaryenergy demand are shown in Figure 6.84 for both the Reference andEnergy [R]evolution Scenarios. Under the Reference Scenario, totalprimary energy demand quadruples from the current 22,300 PJ/a to89,100 PJ/a in 2050. In the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, bycontrast, demand will increase by about 230 % and is expected toreach 52,000 PJ/a by 2050.

Under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, electricity demand isexpected to increase substantially (see Figure 6.85). With theexploitation of efficiency measures, however, a higher increase can beavoided, leading to demand of around 3,500 TWh/a in 2050.Compared to the Reference Scenario, efficiency measures avoid thegeneration of about 1,410 TWh/a. This reduction can be achieved in

particular by introducing highly efficient electronic devices using thebest available technology in all demand sectors.

Efficiency gains for heat and cooling supply are also significant.Under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, final demand for heatingand cooling can even be reduced (see Figure 6.86). Compared to theReference Scenario, consumption equivalent to 3,130 PJ/a is avoidedthrough efficiency gains by 2050.

In the transport sector it is assumed that a fast growing economywill see energy demand, even under the Energy [R]evolutionScenario, increase dramatically - from 1,550 PJ/a in 2005 to 8,700PJ/a by 2050. This still saves 50% compared to the ReferenceScenario. This reduction can be achieved by the introduction of highlyefficient vehicles, shifting freight transport from road to rail and bychanges in travel behaviour.

figure 6.84: india: projection of total final energy demand by sector for the two scenarios

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

REF2010

REF2020

REF2030

REF2040

REF2050

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

PJ/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

figure 6.85: india: development of electricity demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO; OTHER SECTORS = SERVICES, HOUSEHOLDS)

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

TWh/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

figure 6.86: india: development of heat demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• INDUSTRY• OTHER SECTORS

•TRANSPORT

20,000

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

PJ/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

85

6

key resu

lts|

IND

IA - E

LE

CT

RIC

ITY

GE

NE

RA

TIO

N

india: electricity generation

By 2050, about 60% of the electricity produced in India will comefrom renewable energy sources. ‘New’ renewables – mainly wind,solar thermal energy and PV – will contribute almost 50%. Theinstalled capacity of renewable energy technologies will grow fromthe current 38 GW to 915 GW in 2050, a substantial increase overthe next 42 years.

Figure 6.88 shows the comparative evolution of different renewabletechnologies over time. Up to 2030, hydro-power and wind willremain the main contributors. After 2020, the continuing growth ofwind will be complemented by electricity from biomass,photovoltaics and solar thermal (CSP) energy.

note GREENPEACE COMISSIONED ANOTHER SCENARIO FOR INDIA WITH HIGHER GDPDEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS UNTIL 2030. FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE VISIT THEENERGY [R]EVOLUTION WEBSITE WWW.ENERGYBLUEPRINT.INFO/

table 6.8: india: projection of renewable electricitygeneration capacity under the energy [r]evolution scenarioIN GW

2020

62

8

69

2

10

3

1

155

2040

129

41

170

17

136

48

4

545

2050

156

70

212

29

343

97

7

915

Hydro

Biomass

Wind

Geothermal

PV

Solarthermal

Ocean energy

Total

2030

85

19

127

6

51

10

2

299

2010

43

0.7

11

0

0.2

0

0

55

2005

34

0.4

4

0

0

0

0

38

figure 6.87: india: development of electricity generationstructure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

TWh/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.88: india: growth of renewable electricitygeneration capacity under the energy [r]evolution scenarioBY INDIVIDUAL SOURCE

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• RES IMPORT

• OCEAN ENERGY

• SOLAR THERMAL

• PV

• GEOTHERMAL

•WIND

• HYDRO

• BIOMASS

• GAS & OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

GWel 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

© G

P/J

OH

N N

OV

IS

© G

P/D

AN

IEL

BE

LTR

Á

image NANLINIKANT BISWAS, FARMER AGE 43. FIFTEEN YEARS AGO NANLINIKANT’SFAMILY ONCE LIVED WHERE THE SEA IS NOW. THEY WERE AFFLUENT AND OWNED 4ACRES OF LAND. BUT RISING SEAWATER INCREASED THE SALINITY OF THE SOIL UNTILTHEY COULD NO LONGER CULTIVATE IT, KANHAPUR, ORISSA, INDIA.

image A SOLAR DISH WHICH IS ON TOP OF THE SOLAR KITCHEN AT AUROVILLE,TAMILNADU, INDIA.

86

6

key resu

lts|

IND

IA - C

OS

TS

- HE

AT

ING

& C

OO

LIN

G

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

india

india: future costs of electricity generation

Figure 6.89 shows that the introduction of renewable technologiesunder the Energy [R]evolution Scenario significantly decreases thefuture costs of electricity generation compared to the ReferenceScenario. Because of the lower CO2 intensity, electricity generationcosts will become economically favourable under the Energy[R]evolution Scenario and by 2050 will be more than 4.5cents/kWh below those in the Reference Scenario.

Under the Reference Scenario, a massive growth in demand,increased fossil fuel prices and the cost of CO2 emissions result intotal electricity supply costs rising from today’s $64 billion per yearto more than $930 bn in 2050. Figure 6.90 shows that the Energy[R]evolution Scenario not only complies with India’s CO2 reductiontargets but also helps to stabilise energy costs. Increasing energyefficiency and shifting energy supply to renewables leads to longterm costs that are one third lower than in the Reference Scenario.

india: heat and cooling supply

Renewables presently provide 63% of primary energy demand for heatand cooling supply in India, the main contribution coming from the useof biomass. Dedicated support instruments are required to ensure acontinuously dynamic development of renewables in the heat market.

In the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, renewables will provide 71% ofIndia’s heating and cooling demand by 2050.

• Energy efficiency measures will restrict future primary energydemand for heat and cooling supply to an increase of 90% by2005, in spite of improving living standards. This compares to130% in the Reference Scenario.

• In the industry sector solar collectors, biomass/biogas andgeothermal energy are increasingly replacing conventional fossil-fired heating systems.

• A shift from coal and oil to natural gas in the remaining conventionalapplications leads to a further reduction of CO2 emissions.

figure 6.91: india: development of heat supplystructure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

• FOSSIL FUELS

20,000

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]figure 6.90: india: development of total electricity supply costs

•• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION - ‘EFFICIENCY’ MEASURES

• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

• REFERENCE SCENARIO

1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

B $/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.89: india: development of specific electricitygeneration costs under the two scenarios(CO2 EMISSION COSTS IMPOSED FROM 2020, WITH AN INCREASE FROM 20 $/TCO2

IN 2020 TO 50 $/TCO2IN 2050)

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

$¢/kWh 42000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

87

6

key resu

lts|

IND

IA - T

RA

NS

PO

RT

- CO

NS

UM

PT

ION

- CO

2E

MIS

SIO

NS

india: transport

India’s car fleet is projected to grow by a factor of 16 from 2000 to2050. Presently characterised by small cars (70%), this will stay thesame up to 2050. Although India will remain a low price car market,the key to efficiency lies in electrified powertrains (hybrid, plug-in andbattery electric). Biofuels will take over 6% and electricity 22% oftotal transport energy demand. Stringent energy efficiency measureswill help limit growth of transport energy demand by 2050 to about afactor of 5.5 compared to 2005.

india: primary energy consumption

Taking into account the above assumptions, the resulting primaryenergy consumption under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario isshown in Figure 6.93. Compared to the Reference Scenario, overalldemand will be reduced by about 40% in 2050. Around half of thiswill be covered by renewable energy sources.

india: development of CO2 emissions

While CO2 emissions in India will increase under the ReferenceScenario by a factor of 5.4 up to 2050, and are thus far removedfrom a sustainable development path, under the Energy[R]evolution Scenario they will increase from the current 1,074million tonnes in 2005 to reach a peak of 1,820 m/t in 2030. Afterthat they will decrease to 1,660 m/t in 2050. Annual per capitaemissions will increase to 1.3 tonnes/capita in 2030 and fall againto 1.0 t/capita in 2050. In spite of the phasing out of nuclearenergy and increasing electricity demand, CO2 emissions willdecrease in the electricity sector.

After 2030, efficiency gains and the increased use of renewables inall sectors will soften the still increasing CO2 emissions in transport,the power sector and industry. Although its share is decreasing, thepower sector will remain the largest source of emissions in India,contributing 50% of the total in 2050, followed by transport.

figure 6.92: india: transport under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• HYDROGEN

• ELECTRICITY

• BIO FUELS

• NATURAL GAS

• OIL PRODUCTS

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.93: india: development of primary energyconsumption under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• OCEAN ENERGY

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

•WIND

• HYDRO

• NATURAL GAS

• CRUDE OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.94: india: development of CO2 emissions by sector under the energy [r]evolution scenario (‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• SAVINGS FROM ‘EFFICIENCY’ & RENEWABLES

•TRANSPORT

• OTHER SECTORS• INDUSTRY

• PUBLIC ELECTRICITY & CHP

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

Mil t/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

© G

P/P

ET

ER

CA

TO

N

© M

AR

CU

S F

RA

NK

EN

/GP

image A LOCAL BENGALI WOMAN PLANTS A MANGROVE (SUNDARI) SAPLING ON SAGARISLAND IN THE ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE SUNDERBANS RIVER DELTA REGION, IN WESTBENGAL. THOUSANDS OF LOCAL PEOPLE WILL JOIN THE MANGROVE PLANTINGINITIATIVE LED BY PROFESSOR SUGATA HAZRA FROM JADAVAPUR UNIVERSITY, WHICHWILL HELP TO PROTECT THE COAST FROM EROSION AND WILL ALSO PROVIDENUTRIENTS FOR FISH AND CAPTURE CARBON IN THEIR EXTENSIVE ROOT SYSTEMS.

image FEMALE WORKER CLEANING A SOLAR OVEN AT A COLLEGE IN TILONIA,RAJASTHAN, INDIA.

88

6

key resu

lts|

DE

VE

LO

PIN

G A

SIA

- DE

MA

ND

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

developing asia

developing asia: energy demand by sector

The future development pathways for Developing Asia’s primaryenergy demand are shown in Figure 6.95 for both the Referenceand Energy [R]evolution Scenarios. Under the Reference Scenario,total primary energy demand more than doubles from the current31,100 PJ/a to 67,400 PJ/a in 2050. In the Energy [R]evolutionScenario, a much smaller 40% increase in consumption is expectedby 2050, reaching 43,800 PJ/a.

Under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, electricity demand is expectedto increase disproportionately in Developing Asia (see Figure 6.96).With the introduction of serious efficiency measures, however, an evenhigher increase can be avoided, leading to electricity demand of around1,965 TWh/a in 2050. Compared to the Reference Scenario, efficiencymeasures avoid the generation of about 860 TWh/a.

Efficiency gains in the heat supply sector are also significant (seeFigure 6.97). Compared to the Reference Scenario, consumptionequivalent to 2,900 PJ/a is avoided through efficiency measures by2050. In the transport sector, it is assumed under the Energy[R]evolution Scenario that energy demand will rise to 8,300 PJ/aby 2050, saving 90% compared to the Reference Scenario.

figure 6.95: developing asia: projection of total final energy demand by sector for the two scenarios

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

REF2010

REF2020

REF2030

REF2040

REF2050

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

PJ/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

figure 6.96: developing asia: development of electricity demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO; OTHER SECTORS = SERVICES, HOUSEHOLDS)

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

TWh/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

figure 6.97: developing asia: development of heat demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• INDUSTRY• OTHER SECTORS

•TRANSPORT

20,000

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

PJ/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

89

6

key resu

lts|

DE

VE

LO

PIN

G A

SIA

- EL

EC

TR

ICIT

Y G

EN

ER

AT

ION

developing asia: electricity generation

The development of the electricity supply sector is characterised byan increasing share of renewable electricity. This will compensatefor the phasing out of nuclear energy and reduce the number offossil fuel-fired power plants required. By 2050, 67% of theelectricity produced in Developing Asia will come from renewableenergy sources. ‘New’ renewables – mainly wind, solar thermalenergy and PV – will contribute 55%.

The installed capacity of renewable energy technologies will growfrom the current 51 GW to 590 GW in 2050, increasing capacityby a factor of more than ten.

Figure 6.99 shows the comparative evolution of the differenttechnologies over time. Up to 2020, hydro-power and wind willremain the main contributors. After 2020, the continuing growth ofwind will be complemented by electricity from biomass,photovoltaics and geothermal sources.

table 6.9: developing asia: projection of renewableelectricity generation capacity under the energy[r]evolution scenarioIN GW 2020

70

7

40

7

13

3

1

141

2040

81

17

171

20

139

14

3

446

2050

82

20

202

26

232

25

5

590

Hydro

Biomass

Wind

Geothermal

PV

Solarthermal

Ocean energy

Total

2030

79

11

127

13

68

5

2

305

2010

51

3

2

3.6

0.7

0

0

61

2005

46

2

0

3

0

0

0

51

figure 6.99: developing asia: growth of renewableelectricity generation capacity under the energy [r]evolution scenario BY INDIVIDUAL SOURCE

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• RES IMPORT

• OCEAN ENERGY

• SOLAR THERMAL

• PV

• GEOTHERMAL

•WIND

• HYDRO

• BIOMASS

• GAS & OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

GWel 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

figure 6.98: developing asia: development of electricitygeneration structure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

TWh/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

© G

P/S

ATA

PO

RN

TH

ON

GM

A

© G

P/R

IOS

image MAJESTIC VIEW OF THE WIND FARM IN ILOCOS NORTE, AROUND 500 KILOMETRESNORTH OF MANILA. THE 25 MEGAWATT WIND FARM, OWNED AND OPERATED BY DANISHFIRM NORTHWIND, IS THE FIRST OF ITS KIND IN SOUTHEAST ASIA.

image AMIDST SCORCHING HEAT, AN ELDERLY FISHERWOMAN GATHERS SHELLS INLAM TAKONG DAM, WHERE WATERS HAVE DRIED UP DUE TO PROLONGED DROUGHT.GREENPEACE LINKS RISING GLOBAL TEMPERATURES AND CLIMATE CHANGE TO THEONSET OF ONE OF THE WORST DROUGHTS TO HAVE STRUCK THAILAND,CAMBODIA,VIETNAM AND INDONESIA IN RECENT MEMORY. SEVERE WATER SHORTAGEAND DAMAGE TO AGRICULTURE HAS AFFECTED MILLIONS.

90

6

key resu

lts|

DE

VE

LO

PIN

G A

SIA

- CO

ST

S - H

EA

TIN

G &

CO

OL

ING

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

developing asia

developing asia: future costs of electricity generation

Figure 6.100 shows that the introduction of renewable technologiesunder the Energy [R]evolution Scenario significantly decreases thefuture costs of electricity generation compared to the ReferenceScenario. Because of lower CO2 intensity in electricity generation,costs will become economically favourable under the Energy[R]evolution Scenario. By 2050 they will be more than 5cents/kWh below those in the Reference Scenario.

Under the Reference Scenario, unchecked growth in demand, anincrease in fossil fuel prices and the cost of CO2 emissions result intotal electricity supply costs rising from today’s $98 billion per year tomore than $566 bn in 2050. Figure 6.101 shows that the Energy[R]evolution Scenario not only complies with Developing Asia’s CO2

reduction targets but also helps to stabilise energy costs. Increasingenergy efficiency and shifting supply to renewables leads to long termcosts that are almost one third lower than in the Reference Scenario.

developing asia: heat and cooling supply

The starting point for renewables in the heat supply sector is quitedifferent from the power sector. Today, renewables provide 53% ofprimary energy demand for heat and cooling supply in Developing Asia,the main contribution coming from biomass. Dedicated supportinstruments are still required to ensure a continuously dynamicdevelopment of renewables in the heat market.

In the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, renewables provide 70% ofDeveloping Asia’s heating and cooling demand in 2050.

• Energy efficiency measures can restrict the future primary energydemand for heat and cooling supply to a increase of 48%,compared to 77% in the Reference Scenario, in spite ofimproving living standards.

• In the industry sector solar collectors, biomass/biogas andgeothermal energy are increasingly replacing conventional fossilfuel-fired heating systems.

• A shift from coal and oil to natural gas in the remaining conventionalapplications leads to a further reduction of CO2 emissions.

figure 6.102: developing asia: development of heatsupply structure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

• FOSSIL FUELS

20,000

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.101: developing asia: development of total electricity supply costs

•• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION - ‘EFFICIENCY’ MEASURES

• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

• REFERENCE SCENARIO

600

500

400

300

200

100

B $/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.100: developing asia: development of specificelectricity generation costs under the two scenarios(CO2 EMISSION COSTS IMPOSED FROM 2020, WITH AN INCREASE FROM 20 $/TCO2

IN 2020 TO 50 $/TCO2IN 2050)

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

$¢/kWh 42000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

91

6

key resu

lts|

DE

VE

LO

PIN

G A

SIA

- TR

AN

SP

OR

T - C

ON

SU

MP

TIO

N - C

O2

EM

ISS

ION

S

developing asia: transport

This region’s light duty vehicle stock is projected to grow by a factor of10 from 2000 to 2050. Biofuels will reach a share of 7%, electricity9% of the energy needed in the total transport sector. Highly efficienthybrid car technologies, together with plug-in and battery electricvehicles, will lead to significant gains in energy efficiency.

developing asia: primary energy consumption

Taking into account the assumptions discussed above, the resultingprimary energy consumption under the Energy [R]evolution Scenariois shown in Figure 6.104. Compared to the Reference Scenario,overall demand will be reduced by almost 35% in 2050. Aroundhalf of the remaining demand will be covered by renewables.

developing asia: development of CO2 emissions

Whilst Developing Asia’s CO2 emissions will increase by a factor of2.5 under the Reference Scenario, in the Energy [R]evolution Scenariothey will decrease from 1,300 million tonnes in 2005 to 1,150 m/t in2050. Annual per capita emissions will drop from 1.3 tonnes to 0.8 t.In spite of the phasing out of nuclear energy and increasing demand,CO2 emissions will decrease in the electricity sector. In the long runefficiency gains and the increased use of renewable electricity invehicles will stabilise CO2 emissions in the transport sector. With ashare of 22% of total CO2 in 2050, the power sector will drop belowtransport as the largest source of emissions.

figure 6.103: developing asia: transport under the two scenarios (‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• HYDROGEN

• ELECTRICITY

• BIO FUELS

• NATURAL GAS

• OIL PRODUCTS

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.104: developing asia: development of primaryenergy consumption under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• OCEAN ENERGY

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

•WIND

• HYDRO

• NATURAL GAS

• CRUDE OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.105: developing asia: development of CO2

emissions by sector under the energy [r]evolution scenario(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• SAVINGS FROM ‘EFFICIENCY’ & RENEWABLES

•TRANSPORT

• OTHER SECTORS• INDUSTRY

• PUBLIC ELECTRICITY & CHP

3,500

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

1,000

500

Mil t/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

© G

P/S

IMA

NJU

NTA

K

© G

P/R

IOS

image GREENPEACE DONATES A SOLAR POWER SYSTEM TO A COASTAL VILLAGE INACEH, INDONESIA, ONE OF THE WORST HIT AREAS BY THE TSUNAMI IN DECEMBER2004. IN COOPERATION WITH UPLINK, A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT NGO, GREENPEACEOFFERED ITS EXPERTISE ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY ANDINSTALLED RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATORS FOR ONE OF THE BADLY HIT VILLAGES BY THE TSUNAMI.

image A WOMAN GATHERS FIREWOOD ON THE SHORES CLOSE TO THE WIND FARM OFILOCOS NORTE, AROUND 500 KILOMETERS NORTH OF MANILA.

92

6

key resu

lts|

CH

INA

- DE

MA

ND

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

china

china: energy demand by sector

The future development pathways for China’s primary energydemand are shown in Figure 6.106 for both the Reference andEnergy [R]evolution Scenarios. Under the Reference Scenario, totalprimary energy demand will increase by a factor of 2.5 from thecurrent 73,000 PJ/a to 185,020 PJ/a in 2050. In the Energy[R]evolution Scenario, primary energy demand increases up to2030 by 60% and decreases to a level of 99,150 PJ/a in 2050.

Under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, electricity demand isexpected to increase disproportionately (see Figure 6.107). Withthe exploitation of efficiency measures, however, an even higherincrease can be avoided, leading to demand of around 7,500 TWh/ain 2050. Compared to the Reference Scenario, efficiency measuresavoid the generation of about 3,160 TWh/a.

Efficiency gains in the heat supply sector are large as well. Underthe Energy [R]evolution Scenario, final demand for heat supply caneven be reduced (see Figure 6.108). Compared to the ReferenceScenario, consumption equivalent to 10,300 PJ/a is avoidedthrough efficiency gains by 2050.

In the transport sector, it is assumed under the Energy [R]evolutionScenario that energy demand will increase considerably, from 5,100PJ/a in 2005 to 17,300 PJ/a by 2050. However this still saves50% compared to the Reference Scenario.

figure 6.106: china: projection of total final energy demand by sector for the two scenarios

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

REF2010

REF2020

REF2030

REF2040

REF2050

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

PJ/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

figure 6.107: china: development of electricity demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO; OTHER SECTORS = SERVICES, HOUSEHOLDS)

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

TWh/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

figure 6.108: china: development of heat demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• INDUSTRY• OTHER SECTORS

•TRANSPORT

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

93

6

key resu

lts|

CH

INA

- EL

EC

TR

ICIT

Y G

EN

ER

AT

ION

china: electricity generation

A dynamically growing renewable energy market will compensatefor the phasing out of nuclear energy and reduce the number offossil fuel-fired power plants required for grid stabilisation. By2050, 63% of the electricity produced in China will come fromrenewable energy sources. ‘New’ renewables – mainly wind, solarthermal energy and PV – will contribute 46% of electricitygeneration. The following strategy paves the way for a futurerenewable energy supply:

Rising electricity demand will be met initially by bringing intooperation new highly efficient gas-fired combined-cycle powerplants, plus an increasing capacity of wind turbines and biomass. Inthe long term, wind will be the most important single source ofelectricity generation. Solar energy, hydro-power and biomass willalso make substantial contributions.

The installed capacity of renewable energy technologies will growfrom the current 119 GW to 1,950 GW in 2050, an enormousincrease resulting in a considerable demand for investment over thenext 20 years. Figure 6.110 shows the comparative evolution of thedifferent renewable technologies over time. Up to 2020, hydro-power and wind will remain the main contributors. After 2020, thecontinuing growth of wind will be complemented by electricity frombiomass, photovoltaics and solar thermal energy.

table 6.10: china: projection of renewable electricitygeneration capacity under the energy [r]evolution scenarioIN GW

2020

254

17

151

1

16

9

1

450

2040

385

68

506

8

300

83

21

1370

2050

457

96

574

20

579

150

74

1950

Hydro

Biomass

Wind

Geothermal

PV

Solarthermal

Ocean energy

Total

2030

313

36

380

3

136

33

7

909

2010

166

3

17

0.2

0,4

0

0

186

2005

117

0.6

1

0

0,1

0

0

119

figure 6.109: china: development of electricitygeneration structure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

TWh/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.110: china: growth of renewable electricitygeneration capacity under the energy [r]evolution scenarioBY INDIVIDUAL SOURCE

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• RES IMPORT

• OCEAN ENERGY

• SOLAR THERMAL

• PV

• GEOTHERMAL

•WIND

• HYDRO

• BIOMASS

• GAS & OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

GWel 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

© G

P/J

OH

N N

OV

IS

© G

P/X

UA

N C

AN

XIO

NG

image A MAINTENANCE ENGINEER INSPECTS A WIND TURBINE AT THE NAN WINDFARM IN NAN’AO. GUANGDONG PROVINCE HAS ONE OF THE BEST WIND RESOURCES INCHINA AND IS ALREADY HOME TO SEVERAL INDUSTRIAL SCALE WIND FARMS. MASSIVEINVESTMENT IN WIND POWER WILL HELP CHINA OVERCOME ITS RELIANCE ONCLIMATE DESTROYING FOSSIL FUEL POWER AND SOLVE ITS ENERGY SUPPLY PROBLEM.

image image A LOCAL TIBETAN WOMAN WHO HAS FIVE CHILDREN AND RUNS A BUSYGUEST HOUSE IN THE VILLAGE OF ZHANG ZONG USES SOLAR PANELS TO SUPPLYENERGY FOR HER BUSINESS.

94

6

key resu

lts|

CH

INA

- CO

ST

S - H

EA

TIN

G &

CO

OL

ING

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

china

china: future costs of electricity generation

Figure 6.111 shows that the introduction of renewable technologiesunder the Energy [R]evolution Scenario slightly increases the costsof electricity generation compared to the Reference Scenario. Thedifference will be less than 1 cents/kWh up to 2020. Because of thelower CO2 intensity, by 2020 electricity generation costs in Chinawill become economically favourable under the Energy [R]evolutionScenario, and by 2050 will be more than 5 cents/kWh below thosein the Reference Scenario.

Under the Reference Scenario, the unchecked growth in demand, theincrease in fossil fuel prices and the cost of CO2 emissions result in totalelectricity supply costs rising from today’s $ 205 billion per year to morethan $ 1,940 bn in 2050. Figure 6.112 shows that the Energy[R]evolution Scenario not only complies with China’s CO2 reductiontargets but also helps to stabilise energy costs. Increasing energy efficiencyand shifting energy supply to renewables leads to long term costs forelectricity supply that are one third lower than in the Reference Scenario.

china: heat and cooling supply

Today, renewables provide 28% of primary energy demand for heatand cooling supply in China, the main contribution coming from theuse of biomass.

In the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, renewables provide 65% ofChina’s total heating and cooling demand by 2050.

• Energy efficiency measures will restrict the future primary energydemand for heat and cooling supply to an increase of 21%,compared to 61% in the Reference Scenario, in spite ofimproving living standards.

• In the industry sector solar collectors, biomass/biogas as well asgeothermal energy are increasingly substituting for conventionalfossil-fired heating systems.

• A shift from coal and oil to natural gas in the remaining conventionalapplications leads to a further reduction of CO2 emissions.

figure 6.113: china: development of heat supplystructure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

• FOSSIL FUELS

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]figure 6.112: china: development of total electricity supply costs

•• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION - ‘EFFICIENCY’ MEASURES

• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

• REFERENCE SCENARIO

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

B $/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.111: china: development of specific electricitygeneration costs under the two scenarios(CO2 EMISSION COSTS IMPOSED FROM 2020, WITH AN INCREASE FROM 20 $/TCO2

IN 2020 TO 50 $/TCO2IN 2050)

16

14

12

10

8

6

$¢/kWh 42000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

95

6

key resu

lts|

CH

INA

- TR

AN

SP

OR

T - C

ON

SU

MP

TIO

N - C

O2

EM

ISS

ION

S

china: transport

In 2050, the light duty vehicle stock in China will be 20 times largerthan today. Today, more medium to large sized cars are driven in China,with an unusually high annual mileage. With growing individual mobility,an increasing share of small efficient cars is projected, with vehiclekilometres driven converging with industrialised country averages. Moreefficient propulsion technologies, including hybrid-electric powertrainsand lightweight construction, will help limit the increase in totaltransport energy demand to a factor of 3.4, reaching 17,300 PJ/a in2050. As China already has a large fleet of electric vehicles, this willgrow to the point where almost 25% of total transport energy iscovered by electricity. Bio fuels will contribute about 7%.

china: primary energy consumption

Taking into account the above assumptions, the resulting primaryenergy consumption under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario isshown in Figure 6.115. Compared to the Reference Scenario,overall energy demand will be reduced by almost 47 in 2050.Around 47% of the remaining demand will be covered byrenewable energy sources.

china: development of CO2 emissions

Whilst China’s emissions of CO2 will almost triple under theReference Scenario, under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario they willdecrease from 4,400 million tonnes in 2005 to 3,200 m/t in 2050.Annual per capita emissions will drop from 3.4 tonnes to 2.3 t. Inspite of increasing demand, CO2 emissions will decrease in theelectricity sector. In the long run efficiency gains and the increaseduse of renewable electricity in vehicles will even reduce CO2 emissionsin the transport sector. With a share of 50% of total CO2 in 2050,the power sector will remain the largest source of emissions.

figure 6.114: china: transport under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• HYDROGEN

• ELECTRICITY

• BIO FUELS

• NATURAL GAS

• OIL PRODUCTS

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.115: china: development of primary energyconsumption under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• OCEAN ENERGY

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

•WIND

• HYDRO

• NATURAL GAS

• CRUDE OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

200,000

180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.116: china: development of CO2 emissions by sector under the energy [r]evolution scenario (‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• SAVINGS FROM ‘EFFICIENCY’ & RENEWABLES

•TRANSPORT

• OTHER SECTORS• INDUSTRY

• PUBLIC ELECTRICITY & CHP

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

Mil t/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

© G

P/H

U W

EI

© N

. BE

HR

ING

-CH

ISH

OL

M/G

Pimage A WORKER ENTERS A TURBINE TOWER FOR MAINTENANCE AT DABANCHENGWIND FARM. CHINA’S BEST WIND RESOURCES ARE MADE POSSIBLE BY THE NATURALBREACH IN TIANSHAN (TIAN MOUNTAIN).

image WOMEN WEAR MASKS AS THEY RIDE BIKES TO WORK IN THE POLLUTED TOWNOF LINFEN. LINFEN, A CITY OF ABOUT 4.3 MILLION, IS ONE OF THE MOST POLLUTEDCITIES IN THE WORLD. CHINA’S INCREASINGLY POLLUTED ENVIRONMENT IS LARGELYA RESULT OF THE COUNTRY’S RAPID DEVELOPMENT AND CONSEQUENTLY A LARGEINCREASE IN PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION, WHICH IS ALMOST ENTIRELYPRODUCED BY BURNING COAL.

96

6

key resu

lts|

OE

CD

PA

CIF

IC - D

EM

AN

D

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

oecd pacific

oecd pacific: energy demand by sector

The future development pathways for the OECD Pacific’s primaryenergy demand are shown in Figure 6.117 for both the Reference andEnergy [R]evolution Scenarios. Under the Reference Scenario, totalprimary energy demand increases by 27% - from the current 37,040PJ/a to 47,020 PJ/a in 2050. In the Energy [R]evolution Scenario,by contrast, primary energy demand decreases by 33% compared tocurrent consumption and is expected by 2050 to reach 24,950 PJ/a.

Under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, electricity demand in theindustry as well as the residential and services sectors is expected tofall slightly below the current level of demand (see Figure 6.118).The growing use of electric vehicles however leads to an increase inelectricity demand, reaching 1,920 TWh/a in 2050. Overall demandis still 560 TWh/a lower than in the Reference Scenario.

Efficiency gains in the heat supply sector are even larger. Under theEnergy [R]evolution Scenario, final demand for heat supply caneven be reduced (see Figure 6.119). Compared to the ReferenceScenario, consumption equivalent to 2,860 PJ/a is avoided throughefficiency gains by 2050.

In the transport sector, it is assumed under the Energy [R]evolutionScenario that energy demand will decrease by 40% to 4,000 PJ/aby 2050, saving about 50% compared to the Reference Scenario.

figure 6.117: oecd pacific: projection of total final energy demand by sector for the two scenarios

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

REF2010

REF2020

REF2030

REF2040

REF2050

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

figure 6.118: oecd pacific: development of electricity demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO; OTHER SECTORS = SERVICES, HOUSEHOLDS)

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

TWh/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

figure 6.119: oecd pacific: development of heat demand by sector(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• INDUSTRY• OTHER SECTORS

•TRANSPORT

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

PJ/a 02005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

97

6

key resu

lts|

OE

CD

PA

CIF

IC - E

LE

CT

RIC

ITY

GE

NE

RA

TIO

N

oecd pacific: electricity generation

A dynamically growing renewable energy market will compensatefor the phasing out of nuclear energy and reduce the number offossil fuel-fired power plants required for grid stabilisation. By2050, 78% of the electricity produced in the OECD Pacific willcome from renewable energy sources. ‘New’ renewables – mainlywind, solar thermal energy and PV – will contribute 68%.

The installed capacity of renewable energy technologies will growfrom the current 62 GW to more than 600 GW in 2050, anincrease by a factor of ten.

To achieve an economically attractive growth in renewable energysources, a balanced and timely mobilisation of all technologies is ofgreat importance. Figure 6.121 shows the comparative evolution ofthe different renewables over time. Up to 2020, hydro-power andwind will remain the main contributors. After 2020, the continuinggrowth of wind will be complemented by electricity from biomass,photovoltaic and solar thermal energy.

table 6.11: oecd pacific: projection of renewableelectricity generation capacity under the energy[r]evolution scenarioIN GW 2020

76

8

35

2

35

3

1

166

2040

86

22

116

5

116

6

11

389

2050

89

33

201

7

201

7

21

609

Hydro

Biomass

Wind

Geothermal

PV

Solarthermal

Ocean energy

Total

2030

81

13

68

3

68

3

4

252

2010

64

5

5

1

5

0

0

80

2005

55

3

2

1

0.02

0

0

62

figure 6.120: oecd pacific: development of electricitygeneration structure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

TWh/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.121: oecd pacific: growth of renewableelectricity generation capacity under the energy[r]evolution scenarioBY INDIVIDUAL SOURCE

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• RES IMPORT

• OCEAN ENERGY

• SOLAR THERMAL

• PV

• GEOTHERMAL

•WIND

• HYDRO

• BIOMASS

• GAS & OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

GWel 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

© B

. GO

OD

E/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

© J

. GO

UG

H/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

image GEOTHERMAL POWER STATION,NORTH ISLAND, NEW ZEALAND.

image WIND FARM LOOKING OVER THE OCEAN AT CAPE JERVIS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

98

6

key resu

lts|

OE

CD

PA

CIF

IC - C

OS

TS

- HE

AT

ING

& C

OO

LIN

G

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL SCENARIO OECD NORTH AMERICALATIN AMERICAOECD EUROPE AFRICA

MIDDLE EASTTRANSITION ECONOMIESINDIA

DEVELOPING ASIACHINAOECD PACIFIC

oecd pacific

oecd pacific: future costs of electricity generation

Figure 6.122 shows that the introduction of renewable technologiesunder the Energy [R]evolution Scenario slightly increases the costsof electricity generation in the OECD Pacific compared to theReference Scenario. The difference will be less than 1.5 cents/kWhup to 2030. Because of the lower CO2 intensity, by 2020 electricitygeneration costs will become economically favourable under theEnergy [R]evolution Scenario, and by 2050 they will be more than4 cents/kWh below those in the Reference Scenario.

Under the Reference Scenario, by contrast, unchecked growth indemand, an increase in fossil fuel prices and the cost of CO2

emissions result in total electricity supply costs rising from today’s$160 billion per year to more than $400 bn in 2050. Figure 6.123shows that the Energy [R]evolution Scenario not only complies withthe OECD Pacific’s CO2 reduction targets but also helps to stabiliseenergy costs. Increasing energy efficiency and shifting energy supplyto renewables leads to long term costs for electricity supply thatare one third lower than in the Reference Scenario.

oecd pacific: heat and cooling supply

Renewables currently provide 5% of OECD Pacific’s primaryenergy demand for heat supply, the main contribution coming frombiomass. Dedicated support instruments are required to ensure afuture dynamic development.

In the Energy [R]evolution Scenario, renewables provide 73% ofOECD Pacific’s total heating and cooling demand by 2050.

• Energy efficiency measures can decrease the current demand forheat supply by 10%, in spite of improving living standards.

• For direct heating, solar collectors, biomass/biogas as well asgeothermal energy are increasingly substituting for fossil fuel-fired systems.

• A shift from coal and oil to natural gas in the remaining conventionalapplications will lead to a further reduction of CO2 emissions.

figure 6.124: oecd pacific: development of heat supplystructure under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

• FOSSIL FUELS

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]figure 6.123: oecd pacific: development of total electricity supply costs

•• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION - ‘EFFICIENCY’ MEASURES

• ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

• REFERENCE SCENARIO

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

B $/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.122: oecd pacific: development of specificelectricity generation costs under the two scenarios(CO2 EMISSION COSTS IMPOSED FROM 2010, WITH AN INCREASE FROM 15 $/TCO2

IN 2010 TO 50 $/TCO2IN 2050)

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

$¢/kWh 42000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

99

6

key resu

lts|

OE

CD

PA

CIF

IC - T

RA

NS

PO

RT

- CO

NS

UM

PT

ION

- CO

2E

MIS

SIO

NS

oecd pacific: transport

The low duty vehicles (LDV) market in OECD Pacific is driven byJapan, with a unique share of small cars and a fuel consumptionaverage of 6.45 litres/100 km in the new car fleet. Other countries in theregion typically drive larger cars, and incentives to encourage smallercars will be crucial. The LDV stock is projected to grow by a factor of1.4 to 119 million vehicles. While 94% of all LDVs use petrol today,electrified vehicles will play a key role, especially in Japan’s well suitedsmall cars, in reducing energy demand. By 2050, 35% of total transportenergy is covered by electricity and 25% by bio fuels.

oecd pacific: primary energy consumption

Taking into account the above assumptions, the resulting primaryenergy consumption under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario isshown in Figure 6.126. Compared to the Reference Scenario, overallenergy demand will be reduced by 47% in 2050. Around 55% ofthe remaining demand will be covered by renewable energy sources.

oecd pacific: development of CO2 emissions

Whilst the OECD Pacific’s emissions of CO2 will increase by 20%under the Reference Scenario, under the Energy [R]evolutionScenario they will decrease from 1,900 million tonnes in 2005 to430 m/t in 2050. Annual per capita emissions will fall from 9.5tonnes to 2.4 t. In the long run efficiency gains and the increased useof renewable electricity in vehicles will even reduce CO2 emissions inthe transport sector. With a share of 45% of total CO2 in 2050, thepower sector will remain the largest source of emissions.

figure 6.125: oecd pacific: transport under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• HYDROGEN

• ELECTRICITY

• BIO FUELS

• NATURAL GAS

• OIL PRODUCTS

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.126: oecd pacific: development of primaryenergy consumption under the two scenarios(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• ‘EFFICIENCY’

• OCEAN ENERGY

• GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

• BIOMASS

•WIND

• HYDRO

• NATURAL GAS

• CRUDE OIL

• COAL

• NUCLEAR

50,000

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

PJ/a 0REF2005

E[R] REF2010

E[R] REF2020

E[R] REF2030

E[R] REF2040

E[R] REF2050

E[R]

figure 6.127: oecd pacific: development of CO2 emissions by sector under the energy [r]evolution scenario (‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

•• SAVINGS FROM ‘EFFICIENCY’ & RENEWABLES

•TRANSPORT

• OTHER SECTORS• INDUSTRY

• PUBLIC ELECTRICITY & CHP

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

Mil t/a 0E[R]2005

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

© G

P/S

OL

NE

SS

© G

P/N

AO

MI

TO

YO

DA

image SOLAR PANELS ON CONISTONSTATION, NORTH WEST OF ALICESPRINGS, NORTHERN TERRITORY.

image THE “CITIZENS’ WINDMILL” INAOMORI, NORTHERN JAPAN. PUBLICGROUPS, SUCH AS CO-OPERATIVES, AREBUILDING AND RUNNING LARGE-SCALEWIND TURBINES IN SEVERAL CITIESAND TOWNS ACROSS JAPAN.

100

futu[r]e investment & development

GLOBAL INVESTMENT IN NEW POWER PLANTSRENEWABLE POWER GENERATIONINVESTMENT

FOSSIL FUEL POWER GENERATION INVESTMENT

“I often ask myself why thiswhole question needs to be sodifficult, why governmentshave to be dragged kickingand screaming even when the cost is miniscule.”LYN ALLISON LEADER OF THE AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS, SENATOR 2004-2008

image PRODUCIN

G WIN

D ROTORS FOR OFFSHORE WIN

D ENERGY IN RIN

GKOBING, D

ENMARK.

© PAUL LANGROCK/ZENIT/GP77

101

global market overviewsource FOR PAGE 101+102: RENEWABLE 2007 - GLOBAL STATUS REPORT, REN 21, ERIC MARTINOT

The global market for renewable energy has been expanding inrecent years at a record rate, an indication of its potential to realisethe future targets outlined in the Energy [R]evolution Scenario.

• Renewable electricity generation capacity reached anestimated 240 Gigawatts (GW) worldwide in 2007, an increaseof 50 % over 2004. Renewables represent 5 % of global powercapacity and 3.4 % of global power generation. These figuresexclude large hydropower, which alone accounted for 15 % ofglobal power generation.

• Renewable energy (excluding large hydropower) generated asmuch electric power worldwide in 2006 as one-quarter of theworld’s nuclear power plants.

• The largest component of renewable generation capacity is windpower, which grew by 28 % worldwide in 2007 to reach 95 GW.The annual capacity growth rate is even higher: 40 % more in2007 than the year before.

• The fastest growing energy technology in the world is grid-connected solar photovoltaics (PV), with a 50 % annualincrease in cumulative installed capacity in both 2006 and 2007to reach 7.7 GW. This translates into 1.5 million homes withrooftop solar PV feeding into the grid.

• Rooftop solar heat collectors provide hot water to nearly 50million households worldwide, and space heating to a growingnumber of homes. Existing solar hot water/heating capacityincreased by 19 % in 2006 to reach 105 Gigawatts thermal(GWth) globally.

• The use of biomass and geothermal energy for both power andheating has been increasing in a number of countries, including fordistrict heating networks. More than 2 million ground source heatpumps are now used in 30 countries to heat (and cool) buildings.

• Renewable energy, in particular small hydropower, biomass andsolar PV, is providing electricity, heat, motive power and waterpumping for tens of millions of people in the rural areas ofdeveloping countries, serving agriculture, small industry, homesand schools. 25 million households cook and light their homeswith biogas and 2.5 million households use solar lighting systems.

• Developing countries account for more than 40 % of existingrenewable power capacity, more than 70 % of solar hot watercapacity and 45 % of bio fuels production.

In terms of investment, an estimated $71 billion was invested innew renewable power and heating capacity worldwide in 2007(excluding large hydropower). Of this, 47 % was for wind powerand 30 % for solar PV. Investment in large hydropower, the mostestablished renewable energy source, added a further $15–20billion. The total amount invested in new renewable energy capacity,manufacturing plants and research and development during 2007 isestimated to have reached a record $100 billion.

Investment flows have also became more diversified and mainstream,with funding flowing from a wide range of sources, including majorcommercial and investment banks, venture capital and private equityinvestors, multilateral and bilateral development organisations as wellas smaller local financiers. The renewable energy industry has seenmany new companies launched, huge increases in company valuationsand numerous initial public offerings. The 140 highest-valued publiclytraded renewable energy companies now have a combined marketcapitalisation of over $100 billion.

Major industrial growth is occurring in a number of emergingrenewable technologies, including thin-film solar PV, concentratingsolar thermal power generation and advanced or second generationbio fuels. Worldwide employment in renewable energymanufacturing, operation and maintenance exceeded 2.4 millionjobs in 2006, including some 1.1 million in bio fuels production.

The main reason for this industrial expansion is that nationaltargets for renewable energy have been adopted in at least 66countries worldwide, including all 27 European Union memberstates, 29 US states and nine Canadian provinces. Most targets arefor a percentage of electricity production or primary energy to beachieved by a specific future year. There is now an EU-wide target,for example, for 20 % of energy to come from renewables by 2020and a Chinese target of 15 %. Targets for bio fuel use in transportenergy also now exist in several countries, including an EU-widetarget for 10 % by 2020.

Specific policies to promote renewables have also mushroomed inrecent years. At least 60 countries - 37 developed and transitioncountries and 23 developing countries - have adopted some type ofpolicy to promote renewable power generation. The most common isthe feed-in law, through which a set premium price is paid for eachunit of renewable power generation. By 2007, at least 37 countriesand nine states or provinces had adopted feed-in policies, more thanhalf of which have been enacted since 2002. At least 44 states,provinces and countries have enacted renewable portfolio standards(RPS), which place an obligation on energy companies to source arising percentage of their power from renewable sources. Otherforms of support for renewable power generation include capitalinvestment subsidies or rebates, tax incentives and credits, sales taxand value-added tax exemptions, net metering, public investment orfinancing and public competitive bidding.

Beneath a national and state level, municipalities around the worldare also setting targets for future shares of renewable energy,typically in the range of 10–20 %. Some cities have establishedcarbon dioxide reduction targets, others are enacting policies topromote solar hot water and solar PV or introducing urban planningrules which incorporate renewable energy. Market facilitationorganisations are supporting the growth of renewable energymarkets and policies through networking, market research, training,project facilitation, consulting, financing, policy advice and othertechnical assistance. There are now hundreds of such organisationsaround the world, including industry associations, non-governmentalorganisations, multilateral and bilateral development agencies,international partnerships and government agencies.

7

futu

[r]e investm

ent

|G

LO

BA

L M

AR

KE

T O

VE

RV

IEW

© P

AU

L L

AN

GR

OC

K/Z

EN

IT/G

Pimage TEST WINDMILL N90 2500, BUILTBY THE GERMAN COMPANY NORDEX, INTHE HARBOUR OF ROSTOCK. THISWINDMILL PRODUCES 2,5 MEGA WATTAND IS TESTED UNDER OFFSHORECONDITIONS. TWO TECHNICIANS WORKINGINSIDE THE TURBINE.

102

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

growth rates of the renewable energy industry

Figure 7.2 shows that many renewable energy technologies grew atrates of 15–30 % annually during the five year period 2002–2006,including wind power, solar hot water, geothermal heating and off-grid solar PV. Grid-connected solar PV eclipsed all of these, with a60 % annual average growth rate for the period. Bio fuels also grewrapidly during the period, at a 40 % annual average for biodieseland 15 % for ethanol. Other technologies are growing more slowly,at 3–5 %, including large hydropower, biomass power and heat, andgeothermal power, although in some countries these technologies aregrowing much more rapidly than the global average.

These expansion rates compare with the global growth rates for fossilfuels of 2–4 % in recent years (higher in some developing countries)35.

7

futu

[r]e investm

ent

|G

RO

WT

H R

AT

ES

table 7.1: selected indicators2006

$55

207

970

74

5.1

2.5

105

39

6

2007

$71 billion

240 GW

1,010 GW

95 GW

7.8 GW

3.8 GW

128 GWth

46 bill. litrs

8 bill. litrs

66

46

44

53

Investment in new renewable capacity (ANNUAL)

Renewables power capacity (EXISTING, EXCL. LARGE HYDRO)

Renewables power capacity (EXISTING, INCL. LARGE HYDRO)

Wind power capacity (EXISTING)

Grid-connected solar PV capacity (EXISTING)

Solar PV production (ANNUAL)

Solar hot water capacity (EXISTING)

Ethanol production (ANNUAL)

Biodiesel production (ANNUAL)

Countries with policy targets

States/provinces/countries with feed-in policies

States/provinces/countries with RPS policies

States/provinces/countries with bio fuels mandates

2005

$40

182

930

59

3.5

1.8

88

33

3.9

52

41

38

38

figure 7.2: average annual growth rates of renewableenergy capacity, 2002-2006

figure 7.1: annual investment in renewable energycapacity, 1995-2007 EXCLUDES LARGE HYDROPOWER

80

60

40

20

B $ 01995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

(est.)

•GEOTHERMAL

• SOLAR

•WIND

solar pv, grid connected

biodiesel (annual production)

wind power

geothermal heating

solar pv, off grid

solar hot water/heating

ethanol (annual production)

small hydropower

large hydro power

biomass power

geothermal power

biomass heating

0

%

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

source REN21

source REN21 source REN21

references35 ‘RENEWABLE ENERGY STATUS REPORT 2007’, REN 21, WWW.REN21.NET

future growth rates

In order to get a better understanding of what differenttechnologies can deliver, however, it is necessary to examine moreclosely how future production capacities can be achieved from thecurrent baseline. The wind industry, for example, has a currentannual production capacity of about 25,000 MW. If this outputwere not expanded, total capacity would reach 650 GW by the year2050. This includes the need for “repowering” of older windturbines after 20 years. But according to this scenario the share ofwind electricity in global production by 2050 would need to growfrom today’s 1% to 4.5% under the Reference Scenario and 6.5%under the Energy [R]evolution pathway.

A relatively modest expansion from today’s 25 GW productioncapacity, however, to about 80 GW by 2020 and 100 GW in 2040would lead to a total installed capacity of 1,800 GW in 2050,providing between 12% and 18% of world electricity demand.

The tables below provide an overview of current generation levels,the capacities required under the Energy [R]evolution Scenario andindustry projections of a more advanced market growth. The goodnews is that the scenario does not even come close to the limit ofthe renewable industries’ own projections. However, the scenarioassumes that at the same time strong energy efficiency measuresare taken in order to save resources and develop a more costoptimised energy supply.

103

7

futu

[r]e investm

ent

|F

UT

UR

E G

RO

WT

H R

AT

ES

table 7.2: required production capacities for renewable energy technologies in different scenarios

2010

GW/a

2

4

4

0.5

1

1

25

30

36

1

1

0.2

0

28

36

41

2020

GW/a

5

40

45

0.5

12

15

25

82

142

1

5

0.2

2

32

141

202

2030

GW/a

5

65

165

0.5

17

32

25

85

165

1

6

0.2

3

31

176

362

2040

GW/a

5

100

165

0.5

27

65

25

100

165

1

10

0.3

5

31

242

395

2050

GW/a

5

125

165

0.5

33

105

25

100

165

1

10

0.3

10

31

278

435

TOTAL INSTALLED CAPACITY IN 2050

GW

153

2,911

3,835

17

801

2,100

593

2,733

3,500

36

276

9

194

808

6,916

9,435

ELECTRICITY SHAREUNDER E[R] DEMANDPROJECTION IN 2050

%

0

10

13

0

12

32

4

18

23

1

4

0

2

5

46

68

INCLUDES PRODUCTION CAPACITY FOR REPOWERING

NEW RENEWABLE ELECTRICITYGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES

Solar PhotovoltaicsPRODUCTION CAPACITY IN 2007 (APPROX. 5-7 GW)

Reference

Energy [R]evolution

Advanced

Concentrated Solar PowerPRODUCTION CAPACITY IN 2007 (APPROX. 2-3 GW)

Reference

Energy [R]evolution

Advanced

WindPRODUCTION CAPACITY IN 2007 (APPROX. 25 GW)

Reference

Energy [R]evolution

Advanced

GeothermalPRODUCTION CAPACITY IN 2007 (APPROX. 1-2 GW)

Reference

Energy [R]evolution

Advanced - not available

OceanPRODUCTION CAPACITY IN 2007 (APPROX. >1 GW)

Reference

Energy [R]evolution

Advanced - not available

TotalPRODUCTION CAPACITIESPRODUCTION CAPACITY IN 2007 (APPROX.)

Reference

Energy [R]evolution

Advanced

© G

P/H

OTL

I S

IMA

NJU

NTA

K

© G

P/H

U W

EI

image GREENPEACE DONATES A SOLAR POWER SYSTEM TO A COASTAL VILLAGE INACEH, INDONESIA, ONE OF THE WORST HIT AREAS BY THE TSUNAMI IN DECEMBER 2004.

image A LOCAL WOMAN WORKS WITH TRADITIONAL AGRICULTURE PRACTICES JUSTBELOW 21ST CENTURY ENERGY TECHNOLOGY. THE JILIN TONGYU TONGFA WIND POWERPROJECT, WITH A TOTAL OF 118 WIND TURBINES, IS A GRID CONNECTED RENEWABLEENERGY PROJECT.

104

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

7

futu

[r]e investm

ent

|F

UE

L C

OS

TS

map 7.2: fuel costs in the reference and the energy [r]evolution scenarioWORLDWIDE SCENARIO

SCENARIO

LEGEND

REFERENCE SCENARIO

ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCENARIOS

REF

E[R]

DIF

0 1000 KM

COST OF COAL BILLION $

COST OF GAS BILLION $

COST OF OIL BILLION $

FUEL COSTS> 0 > 5 > 10

> 15 > 20 > 25

> 30 > 35 > 40

> 45 > 50 % FUEL COST SAVING IN THE E[R]SCENARIO COMPARED TO THEREFERENCE SCENARIO 2005-2030.GLOBAL FUEL SAVING IS 23.25%

1,231

2,603

2,159

5,994

E[R]

43

703

1,889

2,636

DIF

OECD NORTH AMERICA

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

1,275

3,307

4,048

8,629

REF

TOTAL ALL

FUELS

409

1,320

1,692

3,421

-20

-244

-226

-490

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

389

1,076

1,466

2,931

135

177

74

386

11

115

170

295

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

146

292

244

681

1,775

4,100

3,925

9,801

34

574

1,833

2,441

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

1,809

4,674

5,758

12,242

22

30

19

71

E[R]

3

46

112

162

DIF

OECD LATIN AMERICA

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

25

76

231

233

REF

TOTAL ALL

FUELS

81

225

234

540

8

170

514

692

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

89

395

749

1,233

56

81

16

152

-2

25

72

95

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

54

106

87

247

158

336

269

763

10

241

698

949

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

168

577

967

1,712

105

7

futu

[r]e investm

ent

|K

YO

TO

PR

OT

OC

OL

DESIGN WWW.ONEHEMISPHERE.SE CONCEPT SVEN TESKE/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL.

2,817

9,097

9,242

21,156

E[R]

17

1,272

5,666

6,956

DIF

CHINA

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

2,834

10,370

14,908

28,112

REF

TOTAL ALL

FUELS

28

204

495

726

0

-59

-147

-206

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

27

145

348

520

44

81

57

182

2

13

29

43

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

46

93

86

225

2,889

9,382

9,793

22,064

19

1,226

5,548

6,793

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

2,907

10,608

15,342

28,857

320

508

300

1,128

E[R]

68

425

610

1,104

DIF

TRANSITION ECONOMIES

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

389

933

910

2,232

REF

TOTAL ALL

FUELS

535

1,347

1,487

3,369

-26

-77

191

89

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

510

1,270

1,687

3,458

55

81

22

158

-4

4

47

47

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

52

84

69

205

911

1,936

1,808

4,655

39

352

848

1,239

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

950

2,288

2,657

5,894

31

56

42

128

E[R]

2

48

106

156

DIF

MIDDLE EAST

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

33

103

148

284

REF

TOTAL ALL

FUELS

230

665

821

1,716

-7

106

601

700

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

223

771

1,422

2,416

215

461

327

1,002

13

140

388

542

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

227

601

715

1,544

475

1,182

1,89

2,846

8

294

1,095

1,397

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

483

1,476

2,285

4,244

582

1,155

579

2,316

E[R]

46

408

1,343

1,797

DIF

OECD EUROPE

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

628

1,563

1,922

4,113

REF

TOTAL ALL

FUELS

311

981

1,266

2,558

-4

-54

227

168

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

307

928

1,493

2,726

119

124

56

298

5

69

68

141

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

124

192

124

440

1,011

2,260

1,901

5,172

47

422

1,637

2,107

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

1,058

2,682

3,539

7,279

6,698

18,001

17,254

41,953

E[R]

192

3,576

12,477

16,244

DIF

WORLD

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

6,890

21,577

29,731

58,198

REF

TOTAL ALL

FUELS

2,047

6,283

8,396

16,727

-59

-147

1,291

1,085

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

1,989

6,136

9,686

17,811

855

1,465

862

3,181

27

438

949

1,415

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

883

1,902

1,811

14,596

9,600

25,749

26,511

61,861

161

3,866

14,716

18,744

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

9,761

29,616

41,228

80,605

455

1,202

1,203

2,859

E[R]

11

227

421

659

DIF

OECD PACIFIC

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

466

1,428

1,624

3,517

REF

TOTAL ALL

FUELS

163

603

946

1,712

-9

-99

-187

-296

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

154

504

759

1,417

108

198

113

419

2

28

53

89

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

110

226

166

502

725

2,003

2,262

4,990

4

156

287

446

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

729

2,158

2,549

5,437

289

732

718

1,738

E[R]

1

137

590

727

DIF

DEVELOPING ASIA

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

289

868

1,308

2,466

REF

TOTAL ALL

FUELS

175

524

667

1,367

0

56

189

245

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

175

581

856

1,612

61

150

133

344

0

23

58

81

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

61

173

191

425

526

1,406

1,518

3,450

1

216

837

1,053

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

526

1,622

2,355

4,503

706

1,987

2,240

4,933

E[R]

0

315

1,699

2,014

DIF

INDIA

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

705

2,302

3,938

6,947

REF

TOTAL ALL

FUELS

33

157

440

630

0

-5

-119

-124

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

33

152

321

506

26

40

12

78

0

19

43

62

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

26

59

56

140

764

2,184

2,693

5,641

0

330

1,622

1,952

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

764

2,514

4,315

7,593

247

632

753

1,632

E[R]

0

-6

40

34

DIF

AFRICA

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

247

626

793

1,666

REF

TOTAL ALL

FUELS

82

258

347

687

0

59

247

307

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

82

317

594

993

37

72

52

161

0

4

22

26

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

37

75

74

186

366

962

1,252

2,479

0

57

309

366

2005-2010

2011-2020

2021-2030

2005-2030

366

1,018

1,461

2,845

106

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

investment in new power plants

The overall global level of investment required in new power plantsup to 2030 will be in the region of $ 11 to 14 trillion. The maindriver for investment in new generation capacity in OECD countrieswill be the ageing power plant fleet. Utilities will make theirtechnology choices within the next five to ten years based on nationalenergy policies, in particular market liberalisation, renewable energyand CO2 reduction targets. Within Europe, the EU emissions tradingscheme may have a major impact on whether the majority ofinvestment goes into fossil fuel power plants or renewable energy andco-generation. In developing countries, international financialinstitutions will play a major role in future technology choices.

The investment volume required to realise the Energy [R]evolutionScenario is $ 14.7 trillion, approximately 30% higher than in theReference Scenario, which will require $ 11.3 trillion. Whilst thelevels of investment in renewable energy and fossil fuels are almostequal under the Reference Scenario, with about $ 4.5 trillion eachup to 2030, the Energy [R]evolution Scenario shifts about 80% ofinvestment towards renewable energy. The fossil fuel share of powersector investment is focused mainly on combined heat and powerand efficient gas-fired power plants.

The average annual investment in the power sector under the Energy[R]evolution Scenario between 2005 and 2030 is approximately $ 590 billion. This is equal to the current amount of subsidies forfossil fuels globally in less than two years. Most investment in newpower generation will take place in China, followed by NorthAmerica and Europe. South Asia, including India, and East Asia,including Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines, will also be ‘hotspots’ of new power generation investment.

7

futu

[r]e investm

ent

|P

OW

ER

PL

AN

TS

figure 7.3: investment shares - reference versus energy [r]evolution

reference scenario 2005 - 2030

7% NUCLEAR POWER

40% FOSSIL

11% COGENERATION

42% RENEWABLES

total 11.3 trillion $

energy [r]evolution scenario 2005 - 2030

18% FOSSIL

20% COGENERATION

62% RENEWABLES

total 14.7 trillion $

figure 7.4: change in cumulative power plantinvestment in the energy [r]evolution scenario

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

Million $0

-1,000,000

-2,000,000

-3,000,000 2005-2010 2011-2020 2021-2030 2004-2030

•FOSSIL

•NUCLEAR

•RENEWABLES

107

renewable power generation investment

Under the Reference Scenario the investment expected in renewableelectricity generation will be $ 4.7 trillion. This compares with $ 8.9 trillion in the Energy [R]evolution Scenario. The regionaldistribution in the two scenarios, however, is almost the same.

How investment is divided between the different renewable powergeneration technologies depends on their level of technicaldevelopment. Technologies like wind power, which in some regionswith good wind resources is already cost competitive withconventional fuels, will take a larger investment volume and abigger market share. The market volume by technology and regionalso depends on the local resources and policy framework.

For solar photovoltaics, the main market will remain for someyears in Europe and the US, but will soon expand across China andIndia. Because solar PV is a highly modular and decentralisedtechnology which can be used almost everywhere, its market willeventually be spread across the entire world.

Concentrated solar power systems, on the other hand, can only beoperated within the world’s sunbelt regions. The main investment inthis technology will therefore take place in North Africa, theMiddle East, parts of the USA and Mexico, as well as south-westChina, India, Australia and southern Europe.

The main development of the wind industry will take place in Europe,North America and China. Offshore wind technology will take alarger share from roughly 2015 onwards. The main offshore winddevelopment will take place in North Europe and North America.

The market for geothermal power plants will be mainly in NorthAmerica and East Asia. The USA, Indonesia and the Philippines,and some countries of central and southern Africa, have the highestpotential over the next 20 years. After 2030, geothermal generationwill expand to other parts of the world, including Europe and India.

Bio energy power plants will be distributed across the whole worldas there is potential almost everywhere for biomass and/or biogas(cogeneration) power plants.

7

futu

[r]e investm

ent

|P

OW

ER

GE

NE

RA

TIO

N

•FOSSIL

•RENEWABLES

figure 7.5: cumulative power plant investments by region 2004-2030 in the energy [r]evolution scenario

Transition Economies

South Asia

OECD Pacific

OECD North America

OECD Europe

Middle East

Latin America

East Asia

China

Africa

0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 Million $

© G

P/V

INA

I D

ITH

AJO

HN

image WORKERS BUILD A WIND TURBINEIN A FACTORY IN PATHUM THANI,THAILAND. THE IMPACTS OF SEA-LEVELRISE DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AREPREDICTED TO HIT HARD ON COASTALCOUNTRIES IN ASIA, AND CLEANRENEWABLE ENERGY IS A SOLUTION.

108

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

fossil fuel power generation investment

Under the Reference Scenario, the main market expansion for newfossil fuel power plants will be in China, followed by North America,which will have a volume equal to India and Europe combined. Inthe Energy [R]evolution Scenario the overall investment in fossil fuelpower stations up to 2030 will be $ 2,600 billion, significantly lowerthan the Reference Scenario’s $ 4,500 billion.

China will be by far the largest investor in coal power plants in bothscenarios. While in the Reference Scenario the growth trend of thecurrent decade (2000–2010) will continue towards 2030, theEnergy [R]evolution Scenario assumes that in the second and thirddecades (2011-2030) growth slows down significantly. In theReference Scenario the massive expansion of coal firing is due toactivity in China, followed by the USA, India, East Asia and Europe.

The total cost for fossil fuel investment in the Reference Scenario between2005 and 2030 amounts to $ 80.6 trillion, compared to $ 61.8 trillion inthe Energy [R]evolution Scenario. This means that fuel costs in the Energy[R]evolution Scenario are already about 25% lower by 2030 and will be

50% lower by 2050. Although the investment in gas-fired power stationsand cogeneration plants is about the same in both scenarios, the financecommitted to oil and coal for electricity generation in the Energy[R]evolution Scenario is almost 30% below the Reference version.

fuel cost savings with renewables

Because renewable energy has no fuel costs, the total fuel cost savingsin the Energy [R]evolution Scenario reach a total of $18.7 trillion, or $ 750 billion per year. A comparison between the extra fuel costsassociated with the Reference Scenario and the extra investment costsof the Energy [R]evolution version shows that the average annualadditional fuel costs are about five times higher than the additionalinvestment requirements of the alternative scenario. In fact, theadditional costs for coal fuel from today until the year 2030 are ashigh as $ 15.9 trillion: this would cover the entire investment inrenewable and cogeneration capacity required to implement the Energy[R]evolution Scenario. These renewable energy sources will produceelectricity without any further fuel costs beyond 2030, while the costsfor coal and gas will continue to be a burden on national economies.

7

futu

[r]e investm

ent

|F

OS

SIL

FU

EL

S - S

AV

ING

S W

ITH

RE

NE

WA

BL

ES

table 7.3: fuel and investment costs in the reference and the energy [r]evolution scenario

INVESTMENT COST

REFERENCE SCENARIO

Total NuclearTotal FossilTotal RenewablesTotal CogenerationTotalE[R] SCENARIO

Total FossilTotal RenewablesTotal CogenerationTotalDIFFERENCE E[R] VERSUS REF

Total Fossil & NuclearTotal CogenerationTotal RenewablesTotalFUEL COSTS

REFERENCE SCENARIO

Total Fuel Oil Total GasTotalCoalTotal LigniteTotal Fossil FuelsE[R] SCENARIO

Total Fuel Oil Total GasTotal CoalTotal LigniteTotal Fossil FuelsSAVINGS REF VERSUS E[R]

Fuel Oil GasCoalLigniteTotal Fossil Fuel Savings

DOLLAR

billion $ 2005 billion $ 2005billion $ 2005billion $ 2005billion $ 2005

billion $ 2005billion $ 2005billion $ 2005billion $ 2005

billion $ 2005billion $ 2005billion $ 2005billion $ 2005

billion $/abillion $/abillion $/abillion $/abillion $/a

billion $/abillion $/abillion $/abillion $/abillion $/a

billion $/abillion $/abillion $/abillion $/abillion $/a

2005-2010

2251,1901,193

2712,849

1,3141,299

3602,973

-10189

136124

8831,9896,742

1489,761

8552,0476,557

1419,600

27-59185

7161

2011-2020

3101,6591,837

5234,322

9953,4751,2005,670

-967678

1,6371,348

1,9026,136

21,296281

29,616

1,4646,283

17,820181

25,749

438-147

3,476100

3,866

2021-2030

2861,6931,702

4644,144

5364,2161,3656,117

-1,443902

2,5141,973

1,8119,686

29,420311

41,228

8628,396

17,17975

26,511

9491,291

12,241236

14,716

2005-2030

8214,5354,7021,257

11,315

2,8458,9892,926

14,761

-2,5111,6694,2873,445

4,59517,81157,458

74080,605

3,18116,72741,556

39761,861

1,4151,085

15,901343

18,744

2005-2030 AVERAGE PER YEAR

33181188

50453

114360117590

-10067

171138

184712

2,29830

3,224

127669

1,66216

2,474

5743

63614

750

109

8energy resources & security of supply

GLOBAL NUCLEARTHE GLOBAL POTENTIAL FOR SUSTAINABLE BIOMASS

“the issue of securityof supply is now at the top of the energypolicy agenda.”GREENPEACE INTERNATIONALCLIMATE CAMPAIGN

8AR

OU

ND

80%

OF

GLOBAL

ENERGY DEMAND IS MET BY FINITEFOSSI

LFU

EL

S. ©

R. K

AS

PR

ZA

K/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

110

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

The issue of security of supply is now at the top of the energy policyagenda. Concern is focused both on price security and the securityof physical supply. At present around 80% of global energy demandis met by fossil fuels. The unrelenting increase in energy demand ismatched by the finite nature of these sources. The regionaldistribution of oil and gas resources, on the other hand, does notmatch the distribution of demand. Some countries have to relyalmost entirely on fossil fuel imports. The maps on the followingpages provide an overview of the availability of different fuels andtheir regional distribution. Information in this chapter is basedpartly on the report ‘Plugging the Gap’36.

oil

Oil is the lifeblood of the modern global economy, as the effects ofthe supply disruptions of the 1970s made clear. It is the numberone source of energy, providing 36% of the world’s needs and thefuel employed almost exclusively for essential uses such astransportation. However, a passionate debate has developed over theability of supply to meet increasing consumption, a debate obscuredby poor information and stirred by recent soaring prices.

the reserves chaos

Public data about oil and gas reserves is strikingly inconsistent, andpotentially unreliable for legal, commercial, historical andsometimes political reasons. The most widely available and quotedfigures, those from the industry journals Oil & Gas Journal andWorld Oil, have limited value as they report the reserve figuresprovided by companies and governments without analysis orverification. Moreover, as there is no agreed definition of reserves orstandard reporting practice, these figures usually stand for differentphysical and conceptual magnitudes. Confusing terminology(‘proved’, ‘probable’, ‘possible’, ‘recoverable’, ‘reasonable certainty’)only adds to the problem.

Historically, private oil companies have consistently underestimatedtheir reserves to comply with conservative stock exchange rules andthrough natural commercial caution. Whenever a discovery wasmade, only a portion of the geologist’s estimate of recoverableresources was reported; subsequent revisions would then increasethe reserves from that same oil field over time. National oilcompanies, mostly represented by OPEC (Organisation ofPetroleum Exporting Countries), are not subject to any sort ofaccountability, so their reporting practices are even less clear. Inthe late 1980s, OPEC countries blatantly overstated their reserveswhile competing for production quotas, which were allocated as aproportion of the reserves. Although some revision was needed afterthe companies were nationalised, between 1985 and 1990, OPECcountries increased their joint reserves by 82%. Not only werethese dubious revisions never corrected, but many of these countrieshave reported untouched reserves for years, even if no sizeablediscoveries were made and production continued at the same pace.Additionally, the Former Soviet Union’s oil and gas reserves havebeen overestimated by about 30% because the original assessmentswere later misinterpreted.

Whilst private companies are now becoming more realistic about theextent of their resources, the OPEC countries hold by far themajority of the reported reserves, and information on their resourcesis as unsatisfactory as ever. In brief, these information sourcesshould be treated with considerable caution. To fairly estimate theworld’s oil resources a regional assessment of the mean backdated(i.e. ‘technical’) discoveries would need to be performed.

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

OIL

- RE

SE

RV

ES

CH

AO

S

references36 ‘PLUGGING THE GAP - A SURVEY OF WORLD FUEL RESOURCES AND THEIR IMPACT ONTHE DEVELOPMENT OF WIND ENERGY’, GLOBAL WIND ENERGY COUNCIL/RENEWABLEENERGY SYSTEMS, 2006

111

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

GA

S - C

OA

L

gas

Natural gas has been the fastest growing fossil energy source in thelast two decades, boosted by its increasing share in the electricitygeneration mix. Gas is generally regarded as an abundant resourceand public concerns about depletion are limited to oil, even thoughfew in-depth studies address the subject. Gas resources are moreconcentrated, and a few massive fields make up most of thereserves: the largest gas field in the world holds 15% of the‘Ultimate Recoverable Resources’ (URR), compared to 6% for oil.Unfortunately, information about gas resources suffers from thesame bad practices as oil data because gas mostly comes from thesame geological formations, and the same stakeholders are involved.

Most reserves are initially understated and then gradually revisedupwards, giving an optimistic impression of growth. By contrast,Russia’s reserves, the largest in the world, are considered to havebeen overestimated by about 30%. Owing to geological similarities,gas follows the same depletion dynamic as oil, and thus the samediscovery and production cycles. In fact, existing data for gas is ofworse quality than for oil, with ambiguities arising over the amountproduced partly because flared and vented gas is not alwaysaccounted for. As opposed to published reserves, the technical oneshave been almost constant since 1980 because discoveries haveroughly matched production.

coal

Coal was the world’s largest source of primary energy until it wasovertaken by oil in the 1960s. Today, coal supplies almost onequarter of the world’s energy. Despite being the most abundant offossil fuels, coal’s development is currently threatened byenvironmental concerns; hence its future will unfold in the contextof both energy security and global warming.

Coal is abundant and more equally distributed throughout the worldthan oil and gas. Global recoverable reserves are the largest of allfossil fuels, and most countries have at least some. Moreover, existingand prospective big energy consumers like the US, China and Indiaare self-sufficient in coal and will be for the foreseeable future. Coalhas been exploited on a large scale for two centuries, so both theproduct and the available resources are well known; no substantialnew deposits are expected to be discovered. Extrapolating thedemand forecast forward, the world will consume 20% of its currentreserves by 2030 and 40% by 2050. Hence, if current trends aremaintained, coal would still last several hundred years.

table 8.1: overview of fossil fuel reserves and resourcesRESERVES, RESOURCES AND ADDITIONAL OCCURRENCES OF FOSSIL ENERGY CARRIERS ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT AUTHORS. C CONVENTIONAL (PETROLEUM

WITH A CERTAIN DENSITY, FREE NATURAL GAS, PETROLEUM GAS, NC NON-CONVENTIONAL) HEAVY FUEL OIL, VERY HEAVY OILS, TAR SANDS AND OIL SHALE,

GAS IN COAL SEAMS, AQUIFER GAS, NATURAL GAS IN TIGHT FORMATIONS, GAS HYDRATES). THE PRESENCE OF ADDITIONAL OCCURRENCES IS ASSUMED

BASED ON GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS, BUT THEIR POTENTIAL FOR ECONOMIC RECOVERY IS CURRENTLY VERY UNCERTAIN. IN COMPARISON: IN 1998, THE

GLOBAL PRIMARY ENERGY DEMAND WAS 402EJ (UNDP ET AL., 2000).

source SEE TABLE a) INCLUDING GAS HYDRATES

5,400

8,000

11,700

10,800

796,000

5,900

6,600

7,500

15,500

61,000

42,000

100,000

121,000

212,200

1,204,200

5,900

8,000

11,700

10,800

799,700

6,300

8,100

6,100

13,900

79,500

25,400

117,000

125,600

213,200

1,218,000

5,500

9,400

11,100

23,800

930,000

6,000

5,100

6,100

15,200

45,000

20,700

179,000

281,900

1,256,000

5,300

100

7,800

111,900

6,700

5,900

3,300

25,200

16,300

179,000

361,500

ENERGY CARRIER

Gas reserves

resources

additional occurrences

Oil reserves

resources

additional occurrences

Coal reserves

resources

additional occurrences

Total resource (reserves + resources)

Total occurrence

BROWN, 2002EJ

5,600

9,400

5,800

10,200

23,600

26,000

180,600

IEA, 2002cEJ

6,200

11,100

5,700

13,400

22,500

165,000

223,900

IPCC, 2001aEJ

c

nc

c

nc

c

nc

c

nc

NAKICENOVICET AL., 2000

EJ

c

nc

c

nc

c

nc

c

nc

UNDP ET AL.,2000 EJ

c

nc

c

nc

c

nc

c

nc

BGR, 1998EJ

c

nc

c

nca)

c

nc

c

nc

© G

P/L

AN

GE

R

© N

. BE

HR

ING

-CH

ISH

OL

M/G

Pimage PLATFORM/OIL RIG DUNLIN IN THE NORTH SEA SHOWING OIL POLLUTION.

image ON A LINFEN STREET, TWO MEN LOAD UP A CART WITH COAL THAT WILL BEUSED FOR COOKING. LINFEN, A CITY OF ABOUT 4.3 MILLION, IS ONE OF THE MOSTPOLLUTED CITIES IN THE WORLD. CHINA’S INCREASINGLY POLLUTED ENVIRONMENTIS LARGELY A RESULT OF THE COUNTRY’S RAPID DEVELOPMENT AND CONSEQUENTLYA LARGE INCREASE IN PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION, WHICH IS ALMOST ENTIRELYPRODUCED BY BURNING COAL.

112

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

NU

CL

EA

R

nuclear

Uranium, the fuel used in nuclear power plants, is a finite resourcewhose economically available reserves are limited. Its distribution isalmost as concentrated as oil and does not match regionalconsumption. Five countries - Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan,Russia and Niger - control three quarters of the world’s supply. Asa significant user of uranium, however, Russia’s reserves will beexhausted within ten years.

Secondary sources, such as old deposits, currently make up nearlyhalf of worldwide uranium reserves. However, those will soon beused up. Mining capacities will have to be nearly doubled in thenext few years to meet current needs.

A joint report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency37 and theInternational Atomic Energy Agency estimates that all existingnuclear power plants will have used up their nuclear fuel, employingcurrent technology, within less than 70 years. Given the range ofscenarios for the worldwide development of nuclear power, it islikely that uranium supplies will be exhausted sometime between2026 and 2070. This forecast includes the use of mixed oxide fuel(MOX), a mixture of uranium and plutonium.

table 8.2: assumptions on fossil fuel use in the energy [r]evolution scenario

2010

175.865

28.736

168.321

27.503

2005

161.739

26.428

161.751

26.430

2020

201.402

32.909

147.531

24.106

2030

224.854

36.741

126.088

20.603

2040

250.093

40.865

102.912

16.816

2050

278.527

45.511

83.927

13.714

Oil

Reference [PJ]

Reference [million barrels]

Alternative [PJ]

Alternative [million barrels]

2010

111.600

2936,8

115.011

3026,6

2005

99.741

2624,8

99.746

2624,9

2020

135.291

3560,3

128.402

3379,0

2030

157.044

4132,7

122.884

3233,8

2040

170.244

4480,1

100.682

2649,5

2050

180.559

4751,5

74.596

1963,1

Gas

Reference [PJ]

Reference [billion cubic metres = 10E9m3]

Alternative [PJ]

Alternative [billion cubic metres = 10E9m3]

2010

146.577

7.742

139.439

7.299

2005

121.639

6.640

121.621

6.639

2020

179.684

9.182

133.336

6.367

2030

209.482

10.554

106.493

4.784

2040

232.422

11.659

77.675

3.392

2050

257.535

12.839

51.438

2.234

Coal

Reference [PJ]

Reference [million tonnes]

Alternative [PJ]

Alternative [million tonnes]

references37 ‘URANIUM 2003: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND’

113

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

NU

CL

EA

R

© Z

AR

UB

IN/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

image OLD NUCLEAR PLANT. CRIMEA, UKRAINE.

© R

OB

ER

T K

NOT

H/G

P

© G

P/T

IM G

EO

RG

ES

ON

© G

P/C

HR

IST

IAN

AS

LU

ND

© G

P/J

IM H

OD

SO

N

© N

. BE

HR

ING

-CH

ISH

OL

M/G

P

images 1. SCIENTIST FROM THE LOS ALAMOS NUCLEAR LABORATORY, NEW MEXICO,(USA). WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM IS TRANSPORTED FROM LOS ALAMOS (USA) TOCADARACHE (FRANCE) VIA SEVERAL DESTINATIONS FOR TRANSFORMATION INTOPLUTONIUM FUEL OR MOX (URANIUM-PLUTONIUM OXIDE) THEN DESTINED FORSHIPMENT BACK TO USA FOR TESTS IN REACTOR. 2. DSUNUSOVA GULSUM (43) ISSUFFERING FROM A BRAIN TUMOUR. SHE LIVES IN THE NUCLEAR BOMB TESTING AREAIN THE EAST KAZAKH REGION OF KAZAKHSTAN. 3. DOCTOR PEI HONGCHUAN EXAMINESZHAI LISHENG, A YOUNG BOY WHO IS SUFFERING FROM A RESPIRATORY ILLNESS DUETO THE HEAVY POLLUTION IN LINFEN. LINFEN, A CITY OF ABOUT 4.3 MILLION, IS ONEOF THE MOST POLLUTED CITIES IN THE WORLD. CHINA’S INCREASINGLY POLLUTEDENVIRONMENT IS LARGELY A RESULT OF THE COUNTRY’S RAPID DEVELOPMENT ANDCONSEQUENTLY A LARGE INCREASE IN PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION, WHICH ISALMOST ENTIRELY PRODUCED BY BURNING COAL. 4. GREENPEACE SURVEY OF GULFWAR OIL POLLUTION IN KUWAIT. AERIAL VIEW OF OIL IN THE SEA. 5. AERIAL VIEW OFTHE CHEVRON EMPIRE, SITUATED IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH NEAR THE MOUTH OF THEMISSISSIPPI RIVER, AN AREA DEVASTATED BY HURRICANE KATRINA. AROUND 991,000GALLONS OF OIL WERE RELEASED. AROUND 4,000 GALLONS WERE RECOVERED AND AFURTHER 3,600 GALLONS WERE CONTAINED DURING THE HURRICANE. 19 DAYS AFTERHURRICANE KATRINA HIT THE DEVASTATION IS EVIDENT, WITH VILLAGES AND TOWNSSTILL FLOODED WITH CONTAMINATED WATER FROM THE OIL INDUSTRIES. LOCALRESIDENTS AND OFFICIALS BLAME A RUPTURED SHELL PIPELINE FOR SPREADINGOIL THROUGH MARSHES AND COMMUNITIES DOWN RIVER FROM NEW ORLEANS.

1

3

2

4 5

114

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

OIL

NON RENEWABLE RESOURCE

LEGEND

REFERENCE SCENARIO

ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

REF

E[R]

0 1000 KM

RESERVES TOTAL THOUSAND MILLION BARRELS [TMB] | SHARE IN % OF GLOBAL TOTAL [END OF 2007]

CONSUMPTION PER REGION MILLION BARRELS [MB] | PETA JOULE [PJ]

CONSUMPTION PER PERSON LITERS [L]

H HIGHEST | M MIDDLE | L LOWEST

OIL

TMB %

OECD NORTH AMERICA

2007 69.3 5.6%

2005

2050

7,891H

10,554H

48,290H

64,590H

TMB %

69.3 5.6%

48,290H

11,531

7,891H

1,884

PJ PJMB MB

2005

2050

2,875H

2,906H

2,875H

519

L L

REF E[R]

TMB %

LATIN AMERICA

2007 111.2 9.0%

2005

2050

1,554

3,102

9,511

18,985

TMB %

111.2 9.0%

9,511

4,229

1,554

691

PJ PJMB MB

2005

2050

550

780

550

174

L L

REF E[R]

>60 50-60 40-50

30-40 20-30 10-20

5-10 0-5 % RESOURCESGLOBALLY

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

140

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

US

$ D

OL

LA

RS

PE

R B

AR

RE

L

YEARS 1988 - 2007 PAST YEARS 2007 - 2050 FUTURE

COST

crude oil prices 1988 - 2007 and futurepredictions comparing theREF and E[R] scenarios1 barrel = 159 litresSOURCES REF: INTERNATIONALENERGY AGENCY/E[R]: DEVELOPMENTSAPPLIED IN THE GES-PROJECT

E[R]

REF

map 8.1: oil reference scenario and the energy [r]evolution scenarioWORLDWIDE SCENARIO

115

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

OIL

TMB %

AFRICA

2007 117.5M 9.5%

2005

2050

893

2,238

5,465

13,697

TMB %

117.5M 9.5%

5,465

6,923

893

1,131

PJ PJMB MB

2005

2050

154

178L

154

90L

L L

REF E[R]

TMB %

INDIA

2007 5.5 0.5%

2005

2050

861L

4,220

5,272L

25,824

TMB %

5.5 0.5%

5,272

9,738

861

1,591

PJ PJMB MB

2005

2050

121L

405

121L

153

L L

REF E[R]

TMB %

DEVELOPING ASIA

2007 14.8 1.2%

2005

2050

1,871

4,073

11,450

24,928

TMB %

14.8 1.2%

11,450

11,297

1,871

1,846

PJ PJMB MB

2005

2050

305

431

305

195

L L

REF E[R]

TMB %

OECD PACIFIC

2007 5.1L 0.4%

2005

2050

2,689M

2,568

16,454M

15,718

TMB %

5.1L 0.4%

16,454

4,647

2,689

759

PJ PJMB MB

2005

2050

2,136

2,293

2,136

678H

L L

REF E[R]

TMB %

GLOBAL

2007 1,199 100%

2005

2050

26,428

45,511

161,739

278,527

TMB %

1,199 100%

161,739

83,927

26,428

13,714

PJ PJMB MB

2005

2050

646

789

646

238

L L

REF E[R]

TMB %

TRANSITION ECONOMIES

2007 87.6 10.1%L

2005

2050

1,503

2,063L

9,199

12,628L

TMB %

87.6 10.1%L

9,199

2,939L

1,503

480L

PJ PJMB MB

2005

2050

700M

1,117

700M

260

L L

REF E[R]

TMB %

CHINA

2007 15.5 1.3%

2005

2050

2,267

8,237

13,872

50,409

TMB %

15.5 1.3%

13,872

17,950H

2,267

2,933H

PJ PJMB MB

2005

2050

273

923

273

329M

L L

REF E[R]

TMB %

MIDDLE EAST

2007 755.3H 61.0%H

2005

2050

1,931

3,859

11,815

23,614

TMB %

755.3H 61.0%H

11,815

5,312

1,931

868

PJ PJMB MB

2005

2050

1,632

1,769

1,632

398

L L

REF E[R]

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

25

20

15

10

5

0

BIL

LIO

N T

ON

NE

S

YEARS 2005 - 2050

CO2 EMISSIONSFROM OIL

comparison between the REF and E[R]scenarios 2005 - 2050

billion tonnesSOURCE GPI/EREC

E[R]

REF

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

YEARS 1970 - 2005 PAST YEARS 2005 - 2050 FUTURE

RESERVES AND CONSUMPTION

oil reserves versus global demand, production and consumption. global consumption comparisonbetween the REF and E[R] scenarios.

million barrels. 1 barrel = 159 litres

1,199BILLIONBARRELSPROVEN2007

SOURCE BP 2008

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

MIL

LIO

N B

AR

RE

LS

E[R]

REF

1,652BILLIONBARRELSUSED SINCE2005

983BILLIONBARRELSUSED SINCE2005

TMB %

OECD EUROPE

2007 16.9 1.4%M

2005

2050

4,969

4,597M

30,411

28,134M

TMB %

16.9 1.4%M

30,411

9,361M

4,969

1,530M

PJ PJMB MB

2005

2050

1,473

1,298M

1,473

432

L L

REF E[R]

REF global consumption

E[R] global consumption

DESIGN WWW.ONEHEMISPHERE.SE CONCEPT SVEN TESKE/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL.

116

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

GA

S

map 8.2: gas reference scenario and the energy [r]evolution scenarioWORLDWIDE SCENARIO

NON RENEWABLE RESOURCE

LEGEND

REFERENCE SCENARIO

ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

REF

E[R]

0 1000 KM

RESERVES TOTAL TRILLION CUBIC METRES [tn m3] | SHARE IN % OF GLOBAL TOTAL [END OF 2007]

CONSUMPTION PER REGION BILLION CUBIC METRES [bn m3] | PETA JOULE [PJ]

CONSUMPTION PER PERSON CUBIC METRES [m3]

H HIGHEST | M MIDDLE | L LOWEST

GAS>50 40-50 30-40

20-30 10-20 5-10

0-5 % RESOURCESGLOBALLY

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

242322212019181716151413121110

9876543210

US

$ D

OL

LA

RS

PE

R M

ILL

ION

Btu

YEARS 1984 - 2007 PAST YEARS 2007 - 2050 FUTURE

COST

gas prices of LNG/natural gas 1984 - 2007and future predictionscomparing the REF and E[R] scenarios.SOURCE JAPAN CIF/EUROPEANUNION CIF/IEA 2007 - US IMPORTS/IEA 2005 - EUROPEAN IMPORTS

LNG

NATURAL GAS

tn m3 %

OECD NORTH AMERICA

2007 8.0 4.4%

2005

2050

691H

878H

26,259H

33,354H

tn m3 %

8.0 4.4%

26,259H

13,911H

691H

366H

PJ PJbn m3 bn m3

2005

2050

1,584

1,520

1,584

634

m3 m3

REF E[R]

tn m3 %

LATIN AMERICA

2007 7.7 4.3%

2005

2050

112

420M

4,246

15,955M

tn m3 %

7.7 4.3%

4,246

3,986

112

105

PJ PJbn m3 bn m3

2005

2050

249

664

249

166

m3 m3

REF E[R]

E[R]

REF

117

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

GA

S

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

25

20

15

10

5

0

BIL

LIO

N T

ON

NE

S

YEARS 2005 - 2050

CO2 EMISSIONSFROM GAS

comparison between the REF and E[R]scenarios 2005 - 2050

billion tonnesSOURCE GPI/EREC

E[R]

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

YEARS 1970 - 2005 PAST YEARS 2005 - 2050 FUTURE

RESERVES AND CONSUMPTION

gas reserves versus global demand, production and consumption. global consumption comparisonbetween the REF and E[R] scenarios.

billion cubic metres

REF global consumption

E[R] global consumption

181TRILLIONCUBIC METRESPROVEN 2007

SOURCE 1970-2008 BP, 2007-2050 GPI/EREC

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

BIL

LIO

N m

3

E[R]

178TRILLIONCUBICMETRESUSED SINCE2005

134TRILLIONCUBICMETRESUSED SINCE2005

REF

tn m3 %

AFRICA

2007 14.6M 8.0%M

2005

2050

80

268

3,024

10,184

tn m3 %

14.6M 8.0%M

3,024

5,384

80

142

PJ PJbn m3 bn m3

2005

2050

86

134

86

71L

m3 m3

REF E[R]

tn m3 %

INDIA

2007 1.1L 0.6%L

2005

2050

32L

124L

1,208L

4,693L

tn m3 %

1.1L 0.6%L

1,208L

7,116M

32L

187M

PJ PJbn m3 bn m3

2005

2050

28L

74L

28L

113

m3 m3

REF E[R]

tn m3 %

DEVELOPING ASIA

2007 8.6 4.8%

2005

2050

159

341

6,047

12,956

tn m3 %

8.6 4.8%

6,047

8,109

159

213

PJ PJbn m3 bn m3

2005

2050

163

227

163

142

m3 m3

REF E[R]

tn m3 %

OECD PACIFIC

2007 2.9 1.6%

2005

2050

133

224

5,070

8,521

tn m3 %

2.9 1.6%

5,070

3,177L

133

84L

PJ PJbn m3 bn m3

2005

2050

667M

1,259

667M

469

m3 m3

REF E[R]

tn m3 %

GLOBAL

2007 181 100%

2005

2050

2,625

4,752

99,741

180,559

tn m3 %

181 100%

99,741

180,559

2,625

1,963

PJ PJbn m3 bn m3

2005

2050

404

518

404

214

m3 m3

REF E[R]

tn m3 %

TRANSITION ECONOMIES

2007 53.3 29.4%

2005

2050

611

766

23,234

29,089

tn m3 %

53.3 29.4%

23,234

8,790

611

231

PJ PJbn m3 bn m3

2005

2050

1,791H

2,605H

1,791H

787H

m3 m3

REF E[R]

tn m3 %

CHINA

2007 1.9 1.0%

2005

2050

47

277

1,805

10,519

tn m3 %

1.9 1.0%

1,805

8,886

47

234

PJ PJbn m3 bn m3

2005

2050

36

195

36

165

m3 m3

REF E[R]

tn m3 %

MIDDLE EAST

2007 73.2H 40.4%H

2005

2050

239M

719

9,075M

27,323

tn m3 %

73.2H 40.4%H

9,075

4,742

239

125

PJ PJbn m3 bn m3

2005

2050

1,270

2,073

1,270

360M

m3 m3

REF E[R]

tn m3 %

OECD EUROPE

2007 9.8 5.4%

2005

2050

520

736

19,773

27,965

tn m3 %

9.8 5.4%

19,773

10,494

520

276

PJ PJbn m3 bn m3

2005

2050

970

1,307M

970

490

m3 m3

REF E[R]

DESIGN WWW.ONEHEMISPHERE.SE CONCEPT SVEN TESKE/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL.

REF

118

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

CO

AL

map 8.3: coal reference scenario and the energy [r]evolution scenarioWORLDWIDE SCENARIO

NON RENEWABLE RESOURCE

LEGEND

REFERENCE SCENARIO

ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

REF

E[R]

0 1000 KM

RESERVES TOTAL MILLION TONNES [mn t] | SHARE IN % OF GLOBAL TOTAL [END OF 2007]

CONSUMPTION PER REGION MILLION TONNES [mn t] | PETA JOULE [PJ]

CONSUMPTION PER PERSON TONNES [t]

H HIGHEST | M MIDDLE | L LOWEST

COAL>60 50-60 40-50

30-40 20-30 10-20

5-10 0-5 % RESOURCESGLOBALLY

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

400

300

200

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

US

$ D

OL

LA

RS

PE

R T

ON

NE

YEARS 2007 - 2050 FUTURE

COST

coal prices 1988 - 2007and future predictions forthe E[R] scenario.US $ per tonne

SOURCE MCCLOSKEY COALINFORMATION SERVICE - EUROPE.PLATTS - US.

NW EUROPE

US CENTRAL APPALACHIAN

JAPAN STEAM COAL

E[R]

mn t %

OECD NORTH AMERICA

2007 250,510 29.6%H

2005

2050

1,823

2,616

24,342

39,621

mn t %

250,510 29.6%H

24,342

1,175

1,823

51

PJ PJmn t mn t

2005

2050

2.4

3.0H

2.4

0.1M

t t

REF E[R]

mn t %

LATIN AMERICA

2007 16,276 1.9%

2005

2050

48

247

972

4,926

mn t %

16,276 1.9%

972

355

48

15

PJ PJmn t mn t

2005

2050

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.0L

t t

REF E[R]

YEARS 1988 - 2007 PAST

REF

119

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

CO

AL

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

25

20

15

10

5

0

BIL

LIO

N T

ON

NE

S

YEARS 2005 - 2050

CO2 EMISSIONSFROM COAL

comparison between the REF and E[R]scenarios 2005 - 2050

billion tonnesSOURCE GPI/EREC

REF

E[R]

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

YEARS 1970 - 2005 PAST YEARS 2005 - 2050 FUTURE

RESERVES AND CONSUMPTION

coal reserves versus global demand, production and consumption. global consumption comparisonbetween the REF and E[R] scearios.

million tonnes

REF global consumption

E[R] global consumption

846BILLIONTONNESPROVEN2007

SOURCE 1970-2050 GPI/EREC, 1970-2008 BP.

13,000

12,000

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

MIL

LIO

N T

ON

NE

S

E[R]

396BILLIONTONNESUSED SINCE2005

213BILLIONTONNESUSED SINCE2005

REF

mn t %

AFRICA

2007 49,605 5.9%

2005

2050

182

400

4,198

9,207

mn t %

49,605 5.9%

4,198

3,749

182

163

PJ PJmn t mn t

2005

2050

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

t t

REF E[R]

mn t %

INDIA

2007 56,498 6.7%M

2005

2050

393

2,076

8,671

45,550

mn t %

56,498 6.7%M

8,671

10,478

393

455M

PJ PJmn t mn t

2005

2050

0.3

1.2

0.3

0.3

t t

REF E[R]

mn t %

DEVELOPING ASIA

2007 7,814 0.9%

2005

2050

237

655M

4,986

13,777

mn t %

7,814 0.9%

4,986

3,043

237

132

PJ PJmn t mn t

2005

2050

0.2

0.4

0.2

0.1

t t

REF E[R]

mn t %

OECD PACIFIC

2007 77,661 9%

2005

2050

517

568

9,307

10,902

mn t %

77,661 9%

9,307

3,402

517

148

PJ PJmn t mn t

2005

2050

2.0

2.7

2.0

0.8H

t t

REF E[R]

mn t %

GLOBAL

2007 846,496 100%

2005

2050

6,640

12,839

121,639

257,535

mn t %

846,496 100%

121,639

51,438

6,640

2,234

PJ PJmn t mn t

2005

2050

0.8

1.2

0.8

0.2H

t t

REF E[R]

mn t %

TRANSITION ECONOMIES

2007 222,183 26%

2005

2050

562

816

8,809

11,320

mn t %

222,183 26%

8,809

1,896

562

82

PJ PJmn t mn t

2005

2050

1.1

1.7M

1.1

0.3

t t

REF E[R]

mn t %

CHINA

2007 114,500 13.5%

2005

2050

1,995

4,498H

45,951

103,595

mn t %

114,500 13.5%

45,951

26,160

1,995

1,136H

PJ PJmn t mn t

2005

2050

1.5

3.2

1.5

0.8

t t

REF E[R]

mn t %

MIDDLE EAST

2007 1,386 0.2%L

2005

2050

16

132L

371

3,037

mn t %

1,386 0.2%L

371

34

16

1L

PJ PJmn t mn t

2005

2050

0.1

0.4L

0.1

0.0

t t

REF E[R]

mn t %

OECD EUROPE

2007 50,063 5.9%

2005

2050

865

831

14,031

15,598

mn t %

50,063 5.9%

14,031

1,145

865

50

PJ PJmn t mn t

2005

2050

1.1

1.2

1.1

0.1

t t

REF E[R]

DESIGN WWW.ONEHEMISPHERE.SE CONCEPT SVEN TESKE/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL.

120

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

NU

CL

EA

R

map 8.4: nuclear reference scenario and the energy [r]evolution scenarioWORLDWIDE SCENARIO

NON RENEWABLE RESOURCE

LEGEND

REFERENCE SCENARIO

ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

REF

E[R]

0 1000 KM

RESERVES TOTAL TONNES | SHARE IN % OF GLOBAL TOTAL [END OF 2007]

GENERATION PER REGION TERAWATT HOURS [TWh]

CONSUMPTION PER REGION PETA JOULE [PJ]

CONSUMPTION PER PERSON KILOWATT HOURS [kWh]

H HIGHEST | M MIDDLE | L LOWEST

NUCLEAR>30 20-30 10-20

5-10 0-5 % RESOURCESGLOBALLY

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

US

$ D

OL

LA

RS

PE

R T

ON

NE

t %

OECD NORTH AMERICA

2007 680,109 21.5%

2005

2050

914

1,098H

t %

680,109 21.5%

NUCLEAR POWERPHASED OUT BY 2040

TWh TWh

2005

2050

9,968

11,980H

9,968

0

PJ PJ

2005

2050

2,094

1,901

2,094

0

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

t %

LATIN AMERICA

2007 95,045 3%

2005

2050

17

30

t %

95,045 3%

PHASED OUT BY 2030

TWh TWh

2005

2050

183

327

183

0

PJ PJ

2005

2050

37

47

37

0

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

121

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

NU

CL

EA

R

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

NO

. OF

RE

AC

TOR

S

AGE OF REACTORS IN YEARS

REACTORS

age and number of reactors worldwide

SOURCES WISE

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

YEARS 2005 - 2050

PRODUCTION

nuclear generationversus installed capacity.comparison between theREF and E[R] scenrios.TWh and GW

SOURCES GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

500

400

300

200

100

0

TW

h

GW

REF global generation (TWh)

REF global capacity (GW)

E[R] global generation (TWh)

E[R] global capacity (GW)

GW

TWh

GW

TWh

REFE[R]

t %

AFRICA

2007 470,312M 14.8%M

2005

2050

11

15

t %

470,312M 14.8%M

NUCLEAR POWERPHASED OUT BY 2025

TWh TWh

2005

2050

123

164

123

0

PJ PJ

2005

2050

12

8L

12

0

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

t %

INDIA

2007 40,980 1.3%

2005

2050

17

219

t %

40,980 1.3%

NUCLEAR POWERPHASED OUT BY 2045

TWh TWh

2005

2050

189

2,386

189

0

PJ PJ

2005

2050

15

132

15

0

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

t %

DEVELOPING ASIA

2007 5,630 0.2%

2005

2050

42

76

t %

5,630 0.2%

NUCLEAR POWERPHASED OUT BY 2045

TWh TWh

2005

2050

463

829

463

0

PJ PJ

2005

2050

44

51

44

0

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

t %

0ECD PACIFIC

2007 741,600 23.4%

2005

2050

452

734

t %

741,600 23.4%

NUCLEAR POWERPHASED OUT BY 2045

TWh TWh

2005

2050

4,927

8,007

4,033

0

PJ PJ

2005

2050

2,256H

4,122H

2,256H

0

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

t %

GLOBAL

2007 3,169,238 100%

2005

2050

2,768

3,517

t %

3,169,238 100%

NUCLEAR POWERPHASED OUT BY 2045

TWh TWh

2005

2050

30,201

38,372

30,201

0

PJ PJ

2005

2050

426

384

426

0

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

t %

TRANSITION ECONOMIES

2007 1,043,687H 32.9%H

2005

2050

281M

475

t %

1,043,687H 32.9%H

NUCLEAR POWERPHASED OUT BY 2045

TWh TWh

2005

2050

3,070M

5,183

3,070M

0

PJ PJ

2005

2050

824M

1,617

824M

0

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

t %

CHINA

2007 35,060 1.1%

2005

2050

53

433

t %

35,060 1.1%

NUCLEAR POWERPHASED OUT BY 2045

TWh TWh

2005

2050

579

4,728

579

0

PJ PJ

2005

2050

40

305

40

0

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

t %

MIDDLE EAST

2007 370L 0%L

2005

2050

0L

7L

t %

370L 0%L

NO NUCLEARENERGYDEVELOPMENT

TWh TWh

2005

2050

0L

76L

0L

0

PJ PJ

2005

2050

0L

20

0L

0

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

t %

OECD EUROPE

2007 56,445 1.8%

2005

2050

981H

430M

t %

56,445 1.8%

PHASED OUT BY 2030

TWh TWh

2005

2050

10,699H

4,692M

10,699H

0

PJ PJ

2005

2050

1,828

763M

1,828

0

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

COST

yellow cake prices 1987 - 2008 and futurepredictions comparing theREF and E[R] scenariostonnesSOURCES REF: INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY/E[R]: DEVELOPMENTSAPPLIED IN THE GES-PROJECT

YEARS 1970 - 2008 PAST YEARS 2008 - 2050 FUTURE

DESIGN WWW.ONEHEMISPHERE.SE CONCEPT SVEN TESKE/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL.

122

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

renewable energy

Nature offers a variety of freely available options for producingenergy. Their exploitation is mainly a question of how to convertsunlight, wind, biomass or water into electricity, heat or power asefficiently, sustainably and cost-effectively as possible.

On average, the energy in the sunshine that reaches the Earth isabout one kilowatt per square metre worldwide. According to theResearch Association for Solar Power, power is gushing fromrenewable energy sources at a rate of 2,850 times more energy thanis needed in the world. In one day, the sunlight which reaches theEarth produces enough energy to satisfy the world’s current powerrequirements for eight years. Even though only a percentage of thatpotential is technically accessible, this is still enough to provide justunder six times more power than the world currently requires.

definition of types of energy resource potential38

theoretical potential The theoretical potential identifies thephysical upper limit of the energy available from a certain source.For solar energy, for example, this would be the total solarradiation falling on a particular surface.

conversion potential This is derived from the annual efficiency ofthe respective conversion technology. It is therefore not a strictlydefined value, since the efficiency of a particular technologydepends on technological progress.

technical potential This takes into account additional restrictionsregarding the area that is realistically available for energygeneration. Technological, structural and ecological restrictions, aswell as legislative requirements, are accounted for.

economic potential The proportion of the technical potential thatcan be utilised economically. For biomass, for example, thosequantities are included that can be exploited economically incompetition with other products and land uses.

sustainable potential This limits the potential of an energy sourcebased on evaluation of ecological and socio-economic factors.

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

RE

NE

WA

BL

E E

NE

RG

Y

figure 8.1: energy resources of the world table 8.3: technically accessible todayTHE AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT CAN BE ACCESSED WITH CURRENT TECHNOLOGIES

SUPPLIES A TOTAL OF 5.9 TIMES THE GLOBAL DEMAND FOR ENERGY

ENERGYRESOURCES OF THE WORLD

POTENTIAL OF RENEWABLEENERGY SOURCES ALL RENEWABLEENERGY SOURCES PROVIDE 3078TIMES THE CURRENT GLOBALENERGY NEEDS

SOLAR ENERGY2850 TIMES

BIOMASS20 TIMES

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY 5 TIMES

WAVE-TIDALENERGY 2 TIMES

HYDROPOWER1 TIMES

WIND ENERGY200 TIMES

source DR. JOACHIM NITSCH

source WBGU

Sun 3.8 times

Geothermal heat 1 time

Wind 0.5 times

Biomass 0.4 times

Hydrodynamic power 0.15 times

Ocean power 0.05 times

references38 WBGU (GERMAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ON GLOBAL CHANGE)’

123

renewable energy potential by region and technology

Based on the report ‘Renewable Energy Potentials’ from REN 21, aglobal policy network39, we can provide a more detailed overview ofrenewable energy prospects by world region and technology. Thetable below focuses on large economies, which consume 80 % ofthe world’s primary energy and produce a similar share of theworld’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Solar photovoltaic (PV) technology can be harnessed almosteverywhere, and its technical potential is estimated at over 1,500EJ/year, closely followed by concentrating solar thermal power(CSP). These two cannot simply be added together, however,because they would require much of the same land resources. Theonshore wind potential is equally vast, with almost 400 EJ/yearavailable beyond the order of magnitude of future electricityconsumption. The estimate for offshore wind potential (22 EJ/year)is cautious, as only wind intensive areas on ocean shelf areas, witha relatively shallow water depth, and outside shipping lines and

protected areas, are included. The various ocean or marine energypotentials also reach a similar magnitude, most of it from oceanwaves. Cautious estimates reach a figure of around 50 EJ/year. Theestimates for hydro and geothermal resources are well established,each having a technical potential of around 50 EJ/year. Thosefigures should be seen in the context of a current global energydemand of around 500 EJ.

In terms of heating and cooling, apart from using biomass, there isthe option of using direct geothermal energy. The potential isextremely large and could cover 20 times the current world energydemand for heat. The potential for solar heating, including passivesolar building design, is virtually limitless. However, heat is costly totransport and one should only consider geothermal heat and solarwater heating potentials which are sufficiently close to the point ofconsumption. Passive solar technology, which contributesenormously to the provision of heating services, is not considered asa (renewable energy) supply source in this analysis but as anefficiency factor to be taken into account in the demand forecasts.

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

RE

NE

WA

BL

E E

NE

RG

Y

source REN21

table 8.4: technical renewable energy potential by regionEXCL. BIO ENERGY

OECD North America

Latin America

OECD Europe

Non OCED Europe & Transition Economies

Africa & Middle East

East & South Asia

Oceania

World

SOLARCSP

21

59

1

25

679

22

187

992

SOLAR PV

72

131

13

120

863

254

239

1,693

HYDROPOWER

4

13

2

5

9

14

1

47

WIND ON-

SHORE

156

40

16

67

33

10

57

379

WINDOFF-

SHORE

2

5

5

4

1

3

3

22

OCEANPOWER

68

32

20

27

19

103

51

321

GEO-THERMAL ELECTRIC

ELECTRICITY [EJ/YEAR]

5

11

2

6

5

12

4

45

GEO-THERMAL

DIRECTUSES

626

836

203

667

1,217

1,080

328

4,955

SOLAR WATER

HEATING

HEATING [EJ/YEAR]

23

12

23

6

12

45

2

123

TOTAL

976

1,139

284

926

2,838

1,543

872

8,578

references39 ‘RENEWABLE ENERGY POTENTIALS: OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE RAPID DEPLOYMENTOF RENEWABLE ENERGY IN LARGE ENERGY ECONOMIES’, REN 21, 2007

© L

AN

GR

OC

K/Z

EN

IT/G

P

© L

AN

GR

OC

K/Z

EN

IT/G

P

image SOLON AG PHOTOVOLTAICS FACILITY IN ARNSTEIN OPERATING 1,500HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SOLAR “MOVERS”. LARGEST TRACKING SOLAR FACILITY IN THE WORLD. EACH “MOVER” CAN BE BOUGHT AS A PRIVATE INVESTMENT FROM THE S.A.G. SOLARSTROM AG, BAYERN, GERMANY.

image WIND ENERGY PARK NEAR DAHME. WIND TURBINE IN THE SNOW OPERATED BY VESTAS.

124

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

the global potential for sustainable biomass

As part of background research for the Energy [R]evolutionScenario, Greenpeace commissioned the German Biomass ResearchCentre, the former Institute for Energy and Environment, toinvestigate the worldwide potential for energy crops in differentscenarios up to 2050. In addition, information has been compiledfrom scientific studies of the worldwide potential and from dataderived from state of the art remote sensing techniques such assatellite images. A summary of the report’s findings is given below;references can be found in the full report.

assessment of biomass potential studies

Various studies have looked historically at the potential for bioenergy and come up with widely differing results. Comparisonbetween them is difficult because they use different definitions ofthe various biomass resource fractions. This problem is particularlysignificant in relation to forest derived biomass. Most research hasfocused almost exclusively on energy crops, as their development isconsidered to be more significant for satisfying the demand for bioenergy. The result is that the potential for using forest residues(wood left over after harvesting) is often underestimated.

Data from 18 studies has been examined, with a concentration onthose studies which report the potential for biomass residues.Among these there were ten comprehensive assessments with moreor less detailed documentation of the methodology. The majorityfocus on the long-term potential for 2050 and 2100. Littleinformation is available for 2020 and 2030. Most of the studieswere published within the last ten years. Figure 8.2 shows thevariations in potential by biomass type from the different studies.

Looking at the contribution of individual resources to the totalbiomass potential, the majority of studies agree that the mostpromising resource is energy crops from dedicated plantations. Onlysix give a regional breakdown, however, and only a few quantify alltypes of residues separately. Quantifying the potential of minorfractions, such as animal residues and organic wastes, is difficult asthe data is relatively poor.

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

BIO

MA

SS

figure 8.2: ranges of potentials for different resource categories

energy crops

residues

energy crops

annual forest growth

animal residues

forest residues

crop residues

energy crops

animal residues

forest residues

crop residues

energy crops

residues

energy crops

annual forest growth

no y

ear

2020

-30

2050

2100

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

figure 8.3: bio energy potential analysis from different authors(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

EJ/yr0Hall et al,

1993Kaltschmitt

and Hartmann,2001

2020-30No year 2050

Dessus et al1993

Bauen et al,2004

Smeets et al,2007a (low,own calc.)

Smeets et al,2007a (high,

own calc.)

Fischer &Schrattenhozer,2001(low, own

calc.)

Fischer &Schrattenhozer,

2001(high,own calc.)

• OECD NORTH AMERICA

• OECD EUROPE

• OECD PACIFIC

• CIS AND NON OECD EUROPE

• CARIBBEAN AND LATIN AMERICA

• ASIA

• AFRICA

source GERMAN BIOMASS RESEARCH CENTRE (DBFZ)

source GERMAN BIOMASS RESEARCH CENTRE (DBFZ)

125

potential of energy crops

Apart from the utilisation of biomass from residues, the cultivationof energy crops in agricultural production systems is of greatestsignificance. The technical potential for growing energy crops hasbeen calculated on the assumption that demand for food takespriority. As a first step the demand for arable and grassland forfood production has been calculated for each of 133 countries indifferent scenarios. These scenarios are:

• Business as usual (BAU) scenario: Present agricultural activitycontinues for the foreseeable future

• Basic scenario: No forest clearing; reduced use of fallow areasfor agriculture

• Sub-scenario 1: Basic scenario plus expanded ecologicalprotection areas and reduced crop yields

• Sub-scenario 2: Basic scenario plus food consumption reduced in industrialised countries

• Sub-scenario 3: Combination of sub-scenarios 1 and 2

In a next step the surpluses of agricultural areas were classifiedeither as arable land or grassland. On grassland, hay and grasssilage are produced, on arable land fodder silage and ShortRotation Coppice (such as fast-growing willow or poplar) arecultivated. Silage of green fodder and grass are assumed to be usedfor biogas production, wood from SRC and hay from grasslands forthe production of heat, electricity and synthetic fuels. Countryspecific yield variations were taken into consideration.

The result is that the global biomass potential from energy crops in2050 falls within a range from 6 EJ in Sub-scenario 1 up to 97 EJin the BAU scenario.

The best example of a country which would see a very different futureunder these scenarios in 2050 is Brazil. Under the BAU scenario largeagricultural areas would be released by deforestation, whereas in theBasic and Sub 1 scenarios this would be forbidden, and no agriculturalareas would be available for energy crops. By contrast a high potentialwould be available under Sub-scenario 2 as a consequence of reducedmeat consumption. Because of their high populations and relativelysmall agricultural areas, no surplus land is available for energy cropproduction in Central America, Asia and Africa. The EU, NorthAmerica and Australia, however, have relatively stable potentials.

The results of this exercise show that the availability of biomassresources is not only driven by the effect on global food supply but theconservation of natural forests and other biospheres. So the assessmentof future biomass potential is only the starting point of a discussionabout the integration of bioenergy into a renewable energy system.

The total global biomass potential (energy crops and residues)therefore ranges in 2020 from 66 EJ (Sub-scenario 1) up to 110EJ (Sub-scenario 2) and in 2050 from 94 EJ (Sub-scenario 1) to184 EJ (BAU scenario). These numbers are conservative andinclude a level of uncertainty, especially for 2050. The reasons forthis uncertainty are the potential effects of climate change, possiblechanges in the worldwide political and economic situation, a higheryield as a result of changed agricultural techniques and/or fasterdevelopment in plant breeding.

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

BIO

MA

SS

2010 2015 2020 2050

figure 8.4: world wide energy crop potentials in different scenarios

•BIOGAS

• SRC

• HAY

100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

PJ 0

BA

U s

cena

rio

Bas

ic s

cena

rio

Sub

sce

nari

o 1

Sub

sce

nari

o 2

Sub

sce

nari

o 3

BA

U s

cena

rio

Bas

ic s

cena

rio

Sub

sce

nari

o 1

Sub

sce

nari

o 2

Sub

sce

nari

o 3

BA

U s

cena

rio

Bas

ic s

cena

rio

Sub

sce

nari

o 1

Sub

sce

nari

o 2

Sub

sce

nari

o 3

BA

U s

cena

rio

Bas

ic s

cena

rio

Sub

sce

nari

o 1

Sub

sce

nari

o 2

Sub

sce

nari

o 3

source GERMAN BIOMASS RESEARCH CENTRE (DBFZ)

© G

P/R

OD

RIG

O B

AL

ÉIA

image THE BIOENERGY VILLAGE OF JUEHNDE WHICH WAS THE FIRST COMMUNITY INGERMANY TO PRODUCE ALL ITS ENERGY NEEDED FOR HEATING AND ELECTRICITY,WITH CO2 NEUTRAL BIOMASS.

image A NEWLY DEFORESTED AREA WHICH HAS BEEN CLEARED FOR AGRICULTURALEXPANSION IN THE AMAZON, BRAZIL.

© L

AN

GR

OC

K/Z

EN

IT/G

P

126

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

SO

LA

R

RENEWABLE RESOURCE

LEGEND

REF

E[R]

0 1000 KM

NEEDED SOLAR AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

47,627 KM2

NEEDED SOLAR AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

10,980 KM2

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

10,000

9,000

8,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

TW

h/a

YEARS 2005 - 2050

PRODUCTIONcomparison between the REF and E[R]scenarios 2005 - 2050[electricity]

TWh/a

SOURCE GPI/EREC

0.02%0.02%

0.08%

0.16%

2.54%

0.33%0.49%

8.66%

0.57%

17.23%

0.61%

25.88%

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

0.70

0.65

0.60

0.55

0.50

0.45

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0

US

D C

EN

TS

/kW

h

YEARS 2005 - 2050

COSTcomparison between renewable and nonrenewable energies2005 - 2050

cents/kWh

SOURCE EPIA

pv

concentrating solar power plants (CSP)

coal

gas power plant

SOLAR

2000-2200

1800-2000

1600-1800

2600-2800

2400-2600

2200-2400

1400-1600

1200-1400

1000-1200

800-1000

600-800

400-600

200-400

0-200

RADIATION IN kW/hPER SQUARE METERSOURCE DLR

% PJ

OECD NORTH AMERICA

2005

2050

0.05M

0.65M

58H

1,075

2005

2050

37

517

% PJ

17.03M 13,230

6,364

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

LATIN AMERICA

2005

2050

0.01

0.10

2

50

2005

2050

1

22

% PJ

9.39L 3,050L

1,340

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

E[R] pv/concentrating solar power p

REF pv/concentrating solar power

% total solar share

map 8.5: solar reference scenario and the energy [r]evolution scenarioWORLDWIDE SCENARIO

REFERENCE SCENARIO

ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

PRODUCTION PER REGION % OF GLOBAL SHARE | PETA JOULE [PJ]

PRODUCTION PER PERSON KILOWATT HOUR [kWh]

H HIGHEST | M MIDDLE | L LOWEST

127

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

SO

LA

R

NEEDED SOLAR AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

24,280 KM2

NEEDED SOLAR AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

44,929 KM2

NEEDED SOLAR AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

18,097 KM2

NEEDED SOLAR AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

11,526 KM2

NEEDED SOLAR AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

12,404 KM2

NEEDED SOLAR AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

49,328 KM2

NEEDED SOLAR AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

28,260 KM2

SOLAR AREA NEEDED TO SUPPORT E[R] 2050 SCENARIO

275,189 KM2

NEEDED SOLAR AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

27,756 KM2

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

275,000

250,000

225,000

200,000

175,000

150,000

125,000

100,000

75,000

50,000

25,000

0

PJ

YEARS 2005 - 2050

PRODUCTIONcomparison between the REF and E[R]scenarios 2005 - 2050[primary energy]

PJ

SOURCE GPI/EREC

13%13%

14%

13%

21%

13%13%

31%

13%

43%

13%

56%

E[R] solar

E[R] renewables

REF solar

REF renewables

% total solar share

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

44,000

40,000

36,000

32,000

28,000

24,000

20,000

16,000

12,000

8,000

4,000

0

PJ

YEARS 2005 - 2050

PRODUCTIONcomparison between the REF and E[R]scenarios 2005 - 2050[heat supply]

PJ

SOURCE GPI/EREC

0.12%0.12%

0.64%

0.23%

4.22%

0.66%1.07%

10.61%

1.47%

18.03%

1.77%

25.89%

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

3,750

3,500

3,250

3,000

2,750

2,500

2,250

2,000

1,750

1,500

1,250

1,000

750

500

250

0

GW

YEARS 2005 - 2050

CAPACITYcomparison between the REF and E[R]scenarios 2005 - 2050[electricity]

GW

SOURCE GPI/EREC

REF

E[R]

% PJ

AFRICA

2005

2050

0.01

0.21

2

110

2005

2050

1

15L

% PJ

17.59 6,744

938

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

INDIA

2005

2050

0.00L

0.15

0L

137

2005

2050

0

23

% PJ

14.79 7,710M

1,292

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

ASIA

2005

2050

0.00L

0.20

0L

138

2005

2050

0L

25

% PJ

11.47 5,027

929L

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

OECD PACIFIC

2005

2050

0.07

1.09

28M

512M

2005

2050

38

798H

% PJ

12.83 3,202

4,994

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

GLOBAL

2005

2050

0.04

0.55

176

4,775

2005

2050

8

145

% PJ

15.98 76,441

2,316

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

TRANSITION ECONOMIES

2005

2050

0.00L

0.03L

2

18L

2005

2050

1

17

% PJ

9.63 3,446

3,257

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

CHINA

2005

2050

0.00L

0.71

0L

1,307H

2005

2050

0

256M

% PJ

13.82 13,702H

2,684

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

MIDDLE EAST

2005

2050

0.16H

0.27

33

149

2005

2050

49H

120

% PJ

45H 12,480

9,996H

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

OECD EUROPE

2005

2050

0.06M

1.42H

50

1,279

2005

2050

26M

631

% PJ

16 7,850

3,872M

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

plants (CSP)

plants (CSP)

E[R] solar collector plants (CSP)

REF solar collector plants (CSP)

% total solar share

DESIGN WWW.ONEHEMISPHERE.SE CONCEPT SVEN TESKE/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL.

0.04%0.04%

0.20%0.08%

1.66%

0.23% 0.36%

5.01%0.47%

9.96%

0.55%

15.98%

128

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

WIN

D

map 8.6: wind reference scenario and the energy [r]evolution scenarioWORLDWIDE SCENARIO

RENEWABLE RESOURCE

LEGEND

REF

E[R]

0 1000 KM

WIND

NEEDED WIND AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

100,899 KM2

NEEDED WIND AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

54,753 KM2

% PJ

OECD NORTH AMERICA

2005

2050

0.06M

0.91

70

1,494

2005

2050

44

719

% PJ

7.11 5,522H

2,656

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

LATIN AMERICA

2005

2050

0.01

0.28

1

147

2005

2050

1

64

% PJ

7.98 2,592

1,138

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

REFERENCE SCENARIO

ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

>11 10-11 9-10

8-9 7-8 6-7

5-6 4-5 3-4

1-2 0-1 AVERAGE WIND SPEED INMETRES PER SECONDSOURCE DLR

PRODUCTION PER REGION % OF GLOBAL SHARE | PETA JOULE [PJ]

PRODUCTION PER PERSON KILOWATT HOUR [kWh]

H HIGHEST | M MIDDLE | L LOWEST

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

0.12

0.11

0.10

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0 US

D C

EN

TS

/kW

h

YEARS 2005 - 2050

COSTcomparison between renewable and nonrenewable energies2005 - 2050

cents/kWh

SOURCE GWEC

wind

coal

gas power plant

2005

2010

2020

7,500

7,000

6,500

6,000

5,500

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

TW

h/a

0.57%0.57%

8.76

3.0

1.68%

1.26%

129

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

WIN

D

NEEDED WIND AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

10,114 KM2

NEEDED WIND AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

17,490 KM2

NEEDED WIND AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

40,304 KM2

NEEDED WIND AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

50,217 KM2

NEEDED WIND AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

48,966 KM2

NEEDED WIND AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

114,829 KM2

NEEDED WIND AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

66,667 KM2

WIND AREA NEEDED TO SUPPORT E[R] 2050 SCENARIO

546,688 KM2

NEEDED WIND AREA TOSUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

42,449 KM2

% PJ

AFRICA

2005

2050

0.01

0.21

3

111

2005

2050

1

15L

% PJ

1.25L 479L

67L

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

INDIA

2005

2050

0.10

0.42

22M

373

2005

2050

5

63

% PJ

3.59 1,872

314

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

ASIA

2005

2050

0.00L

0.48

0L

327

2005

2050

0L

60

% PJ

4.35 1,908

352

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

OECD PACIFIC

2005

2050

0.03

0.64M

12

299

2005

2050

17M

466

% PJ

11.7H 2,920M

4,554H

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

GLOBAL

2005

2050

0.08

0.72

372

6,251

2005

2050

16

189

% PJ

5.82 27,857

844

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

TRANSITION ECONOMIES

2005

2050

0.00L

0.36

1

228

2005

2050

0

215M

% PJ

7.15 2,556

2,416

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

CHINA

2005

2050

0.01

0.48

8

882M

2005

2050

2

173

% PJ

5.48M 5,436

1,064

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

MIDDLE EAST

2005

2050

0.00L

0.13

0L

69L

2005

2050

0L

56

% PJ

3.0 828

663

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

OECD EUROPE

2005

2050

0.31H

2.57H

255H

2,322H

2005

2050

132H

1,145H

% PJ

7.65 3,744

1,846M

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

275,000

250,000

225,000

200,000

175,000

150,000

125,000

100,000

75,000

50,000

25,000

0

PJ

YEARS 2005 - 2050

PRODUCTIONcomparison between the REF and E[R]scenarios 2005 - 2050[primary energy]

PJ

SOURCE GPI/GWEC

E[R] wind

E[R] renewables

REF wind

REF renewables

2030

2040

2050

YEARS 2005 - 2050

PRODUCTIONcomparison between the REF and E[R]scenarios 2005 - 2050[electricity]

TWh

SOURCE GWEC

6%

8 %

3.56%

15.10%

3.62%

19.05%

3.43%

20.85% E[R] wind

REF wind

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

3,000

2,800

2,600

2,400

2,200

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

GW

YEARS 2005 - 2050

CAPACITYcomparison between the REF and E[R]scenarios 2005 - 2050[electricity]

GW

SOURCE GPI/GWEC

DESIGN WWW.ONEHEMISPHERE.SE CONCEPT SVEN TESKE/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL.

E[R] wind

REF wind

% REF total wind share

0.4%0.8%

0.25%0.19%

1.50%

0.51% 0.63%

3.01%

0.70%

4.50%

0.72%

5.82%

13%13%

14%

13%

21%

13%13%

31%

13%

43%

13%

56%

130

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

GE

OT

HE

RM

AL

map 8.7: geothermal reference scenario and the energy [r]evolution scenarioWORLDWIDE SCENARIO

RENEWABLE RESOURCE

LEGEND

REF

E[R]

0 1000 KM

GEOTHERMAL100 90

80 70 60

50 40 30

20 10 SURFACE HEAT FLOW IN mW/m2

SOURCE ARTEMIEVA AND MOONEY, 2001

WHITE = NO DATA

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

0.26

0.24

0.22

0.20

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

US

D C

EN

TS

/kW

h

YEARS 2005 - 2050

COSTcomparison between renewable and nonrenewable energies2005 - 2050

cents/kWh

SOURCE EREC

geothermal, CHP

coal

gas power plant

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

1,800

1,700

1,600

1.500

1,400

1,300

1,200

1,100

1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

TW

h/a

YEARS 2005 - 2050

PRODUCTIONcomparison between the REF and E[R]scenarios 2005 - 2050[electricity]

TWh/a

SOURCE GPI/EREC

0.32%0.32%

0.34%

0.42%

1.15%

0.43%0.47%

2.33%

0.49%

3.80%

0.49%

4.59%

% PJ

OECD NORTH AMERICA

2005

2050

0.54

1.03M

625H

1,695H

2005

2050

398H

815

% PJ

16.15H 12,547H

6,036H

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

LATIN AMERICA

2005

2050

0.42M

1.29

89

675

2005

2050

55M

297

% PJ

9.96M 3,237

1,422

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

E[R] geothermal

REF geothermal

% total geothermal sha

REFERENCE SCENARIO

ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

PRODUCTION PER REGION % OF GLOBAL SHARE | PETA JOULE [PJ]

PRODUCTION PER PERSON KILOWATT HOUR [kWh]

H HIGHEST | M MIDDLE | L LOWEST

131

8

energ

y resou

rces & secu

rity of su

pp

ly|

GE

OT

HE

RM

AL

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

280

260

240

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

GW

YEARS 2005 - 2050

CAPACITYcomparison between the REF and E[R]scenarios 2005 - 2050[electricity]

GW

SOURCE GPI/EREC

E[R]

REF

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

26,000

24,000

22,000

20,000

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

PJ

YEARS 2005 - 2050

PRODUCTIONcomparison between the REF and E[R]scenarios 2005 - 2050[heat supply]

PJ

SOURCE GPI/EREC

E[R] geothermal

REF geothermal

% total geothermal share

0.69%

0.17%

2.84%

0.60%1.00%

5.88%

1.31%

10.36%

1.71%

15.41%

0.13%0.13%

2005

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

275,000

250,000

225,000

200,000

175,000

150,000

125,000

100,000

75,000

50,000

25,000

0

PJ

YEARS 2005 - 2050

PRODUCTIONcomparison between the REF and E[R]scenarios 2005 - 2050[primary energy]

PJ

SOURCE GPI/EREC

0.40%0.40%

0.56%0.37%

1.86%

0.72%

4.04%

0.79%

7.33%

0.87%

10.48%

E[R] geothermal

E[R] renewables

REF geothermal

REF renewables

% total geothermal share

% PJ

AFRICA

2005

2050

0.13

0.62

32

333

2005

2050

10

46

% PJ

2.43L 930L

129L

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

INDIA

2005

2050

0.00L

0.15L

0L

138L

2005

2050

0L

23L

% PJ

10.69 5,870M

933

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

ASIA

2005

2050

1.91H

2.32H

594

1,567

2005

2050

169

290

% PJ

12.29 5,390

996

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

OECD PACIFIC

2005

2050

0.54

1.58

200M

743M

2005

2050

277

1,159H

% PJ

7.72 1,927

3,005

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

GLOBAL

2005

2050

0.40

0.87

1,921

7,540

2005

2050

82

228

% PJ

10.48 50,131

1,519

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

TRANSITION ECONOMIES

2005

2050

0.05

1.35

21

863

2005

2050

17

816

% PJ

15.8 5,649

5,341

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

CHINA

2005

2050

0.00L

0.19

0L

345

2005

2050

0L

68

% PJ

6.71 6,652

1,303

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

MIDDLE EAST

2005

2050

0.00L

0.26

0L

145

2005

2050

0L

116

% PJ

10.72 2,958

2,369M

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

% PJ

OECD EUROPE

2005

2050

0.44

1.15

360

1,036

2005

2050

186

511M

% PJ

10.77 5,271M

2,600

kWh kWh

REF E[R]

re

DESIGN WWW.ONEHEMISPHERE.SE CONCEPT SVEN TESKE/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL.

0.57%

13%13%

14%

13%

21%

13%13%

31%

13%

43%

13%

56%

132

9energy technologies

GLOBAL FOSSIL FUEL TECHNOLOGIESNUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIESRENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

9

ima

geB

IOG

AS

FA

CIL

ITY

“S

CH

RA

DE

N B

IOG

AS

” IN

GR

OE

DE

N N

EA

R D

RE

SD

EN

, GE

RM

AN

Y.

© L

AN

GR

OC

K/Z

EN

IT/G

P

“the technology is here, all we need is political will.”CHRISSUPORTER, AUSTRALIA

133

This chapter describes the range of technologies available now andin the future to satisfy the world’s energy demand. The Energy[R]evolution Scenario is focused on the potential for energy savingsand renewable sources, primarily in the electricity and heatgenerating sectors. Although fuel use in transport is accounted forin the scenarios of future energy supply, no detailed description isgiven here of fuel sources, such as bio fuels for vehicles, which offeran alternative to the currently predominant oil.

fossil fuel technologies

The most commonly used fossil fuels for power generation aroundthe world are coal and gas. Oil is still used where other fuels arenot readily available, for example islands or remote sites, or wherethere is an indigenous resource. Together, coal and gas currentlyaccount for over half of global electricity supply.

coal combustion technologies In a conventional coal-fired powerstation, pulverised or powdered coal is blown into a combustionchamber where it is burnt at high temperature. The hot gases andheat produced converts water flowing through pipes lining the boilerinto steam. This drives a steam turbine and generates electricity.Over 90% of global coal-fired capacity uses this system. Coalpower stations can vary in capacity from a few hundred megawattsup to several thousand.

A number of technologies have been introduced to improve theenvironmental performance of conventional coal combustion. Theseinclude coal cleaning (to reduce the ash content) and various ‘bolt-on’ or ‘end-of-pipe’ technologies to reduce emissions of particulates,sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, the main pollutants resultingfrom coal firing apart from carbon dioxide. Flue gasdesulphurisation (FGD), for example, most commonly involves‘scrubbing’ the flue gases using an alkaline sorbent slurry, which ispredominantly lime or limestone based.

More fundamental changes have been made to the way coal isburned to both improve its efficiency and further reduce emissionsof pollutants. These include:

• Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle: Coal is not burntdirectly but reacted with oxygen and steam to form a syntheticgas composed mainly of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. This iscleaned and then burned in a gas turbine to generate electricityand produce steam to drive a steam turbine. IGCC improves theefficiency of coal combustion from 38-40% up to 50%.

• Supercritical and Ultrasupercritical: These power plantsoperate at higher temperatures than conventional combustion,again increasing efficiency towards 50%.

• Fluidised Bed Combustion: Coal is burned in a reactorcomprised of a bed through which gas is fed to keep the fuel in a turbulent state. This improves combustion, heat transfer and therecovery of waste products. By elevating pressures within a bed, a high-pressure gas stream can be used to drive a gas turbine,generating electricity. Emissions of both sulphur dioxide andnitrogen oxide can be reduced substantially.

• Pressurised Pulverised Coal Combustion: Mainly beingdeveloped in Germany, this is based on the combustion of a finelyground cloud of coal particles creating high pressure, hightemperature steam for power generation. The hot flue gases are usedto generate electricity in a similar way to the combined cycle system.

Other potential future technologies involve the increased use of coalgasification. Underground Coal Gasification, for example, involvesconverting deep underground unworked coal into a combustible gaswhich can be used for industrial heating, power generation or themanufacture of hydrogen, synthetic natural gas or other chemicals.The gas can be processed to remove CO2 before it is passed on toend users. Demonstration projects are underway in Australia,Europe, China and Japan.

gas combustion technologies Natural gas can be used forelectricity generation through the use of either gas turbines orsteam turbines. For the equivalent amount of heat, gas producesabout 45% less carbon dioxide during its combustion than coal.

Gas turbine plants use the heat from gases to directly operate theturbine. Natural gas fuelled turbines can start rapidly, and aretherefore often used to supply energy during periods of peakdemand, although at higher cost than baseload plants.

Particularly high efficiencies can be achieved through combininggas turbines with a steam turbine in combined cycle mode. In acombined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant, a gas turbinegenerator produces electricity and the exhaust gases from theturbine are then used to make steam to generate additionalelectricity. The efficiency of modern CCGT power stations can bemore than 50%. Most new gas power plants built since the 1990shave been of this type.

At least until the recent increase in global gas prices, CCGT powerstations have been the cheapest option for electricity generation inmany countries. Capital costs have been substantially lower thanfor coal and nuclear plants and construction time shorter.

9

energ

y techn

olo

gies

|F

OS

SIL

FU

EL

© A

RN

OL

D/V

ISU

M/G

P

image BROWN COAL SURFACE MININGIN HAMBACH, GERMANY. GIANT COALEXCAVATOR AND SPOIL PILE.

134

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

carbon reduction technologies Whenever coal or gas is burned,carbon dioxide (CO2) is produced. Depending on the type of powerplant, a large quantity of the gas will dissipate into the atmosphereand contribute to climate change. A hard coal power plantdischarges roughly 720 grammes of carbon dioxide per kilowatthour, a modern gas-fired plant about 370g CO2/kWh. To ensure thatno CO2 emerges from the power plant chimney, the gas must first beremoved, and then stored somewhere. Both carbon capture andstorage (CCS) have limitations. Even after employing proposedcapture technologies, a residual amount of carbon dioxide - between60 and 150g CO2/kWh - will continue to be emitted.

carbon dioxide storage CO2 captured at the point of incinerationhas to be stored somewhere. Current thinking is that it can betrapped in the oceans or under the Earth’s surface at a depth ofover 3,000 feet. As with nuclear waste, however, the question iswhether this will just displace the problem elsewhere.

Ocean storage could result in greatly accelerated acidification oflarge sea areas and would be detrimental to a great manyorganisms, if not entire ecosystems, in the vicinity of injection sites.CO2 disposed of in this way is likely to get back into the atmospherein a relatively short time. The oceans are both productive resourcesand a common natural endowment for this and future generations.Given the diversity of other options available for dealing with CO2

emissions, direct disposal to the ocean, sea floor, lakes and otheropen reservoir structures must be ruled out.

Among the options available for underground storage, empty oil andgas fields are riddled with holes drilled during their exploration andproduction phases. These holes have to be sealed over. Normallyspecial cement is used, but carbon dioxide is relatively reactive withwater and attacks metals or cement, so that even sealed drillingholes present a safety hazard. To many experts the question is not ifbut when leakages will occur.

Because of the lack of experience with CO2 storage, its safety isoften compared to the storage of natural gas. This technology hasbeen tried and tested for decades and is considered by industry to below risk. Greenpeace does not share this assessment. A number ofserious leaks from gas storage installations have occurred aroundthe world, sometimes requiring evacuation of nearby residents.

Sudden leakage of CO2 can be fatal. Carbon dioxide is not itselfpoisonous, and is contained (approx. 0.04 per cent) in the air webreathe. But as concentrations increase it displaces the vital oxygenin the air. Air with concentrations of 7 to 8% CO2 by volume causesdeath by suffocation after 30 to 60 minutes.

There are also health hazards when large amounts of CO2 areexplosively released. Although the gas normally disperses quicklyafter leaking, it can accumulate in depressions in the landscape orclosed buildings, since carbon dioxide is heavier than air. It isequally dangerous when it escapes more slowly and without beingnoticed in residential areas, for example in cellars below houses.

The dangers from such leaks are known from natural volcanic CO2

degassing. Gas escaping at the Lake Nyos crater lake in Cameroon,Africa in 1986 killed over 1,700 people. At least ten people havedied in the Lazio region of Italy in the last 20 years as a result ofCO2 being released.

carbon storage and climate change targets Can carbon storagecontribute to climate change reduction targets? In order to avoiddangerous climate change, we need to reduce CO2 globally by 50%in 2050. Power plants that store CO2 are still being developed,however, and could only become reality in 15 years at the earliest.This means they will not make any substantial contribution towardsprotecting the climate until the year 2020 at the earliest. They arethus irrelevant to the goals of the Kyoto Protocol.

Nor is CO2 storage of any great help in attaining the goal of an80% reduction by 2050 in OECD countries. If it does becomeavailable in 2020, most of the world’s new power plants will havejust finished being modernised. All that could then be done would befor existing power plants to be retrofitted and CO2 captured fromthe waste gas flow. As retrofitting existing power plants is highlyexpensive, a high carbon price would be needed.

Employing CO2 capture will also increase the price of electricity fromfossil fuels. Although the costs of storage depend on many factors,including the technology used for separation, transport and thestorage installation, experts from the UN Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change calculate the additional costs at between 3.5 and 5.0€cents/kWh of power. Since modern wind turbines in good windlocations are already cost competitive with new build coal-firedpower plants today, the costs will probably be at the top end. Thismeans the technology would more than double the cost of electricity.

The conclusion reached in the Energy [R]evolution Scenario is thatrenewable energy sources are already available, in many casescheaper, and without the negative environmental impacts that areassociated with fossil fuel exploitation, transport and processing. Itis renewable energy together with energy efficiency and energyconservation – and not carbon capture and storage – that has toincrease worldwide so that the primary cause of climate change –the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas – is stopped.

Greenpeace opposes any CCS efforts which lead to:

• The undermining or threats to undermine existing global andregional regulations governing the disposal of wastes at sea (inthe water column, at or beneath the seabed).

• Continued or increasing finance to the fossil fuel sector at theexpense of renewable energy and energy efficiency.

• The stagnation of renewable energy, energy efficiency and energyconservation improvements.

• The promotion of this possible future technology as the onlymajor solution to climate change, thereby leading to new fossilfuel developments – especially lignite and black coal-fired powerplants, and an increase in emissions in the short to medium term.

9

energ

y techn

olo

gies

|F

OS

SIL

FU

EL

135

nuclear technologies

Generating electricity from nuclear power involves transferring theheat produced by a controlled nuclear fission reaction into aconventional steam turbine generator. The nuclear reaction takesplace inside a core and surrounded by a containment vessel ofvarying design and structure. Heat is removed from the core by acoolant (gas or water) and the reaction controlled by a moderatingelement or “moderator”.

Across the world over the last two decades there has been a generalslowdown in building new nuclear power stations. This has beencaused by a variety of factors: fear of a nuclear accident, followingthe events at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Monju, increasedscrutiny of economics and environmental factors, such as wastemanagement and radioactive discharges.

nuclear reactor designs: evolution and safety issues At thebeginning of 2005 there were 441 nuclear power reactors operatingin 31 countries around the world. Although there are dozens ofdifferent reactor designs and sizes, there are three broad categorieseither currently deployed or under development. These are:

Generation I: Prototype commercial reactors developed in the1950s and 1960s as modified or enlarged military reactors,originally either for submarine propulsion or plutonium production.

Generation II: Mainstream reactor designs in commercialoperation worldwide.

Generation III: New generation reactors now being built.

Generation III reactors include the so-called Advanced Reactors,three of which are already in operation in Japan, with more underconstruction or planned. About 20 different designs are reported tobe under development40, most of them ‘evolutionary’ designsdeveloped from Generation II reactor types with somemodifications, but without introducing drastic changes. Some ofthem represent more innovative approaches. According to the WorldNuclear Association, reactors of Generation III are characterisedby the following:

• A standardised design for each type to expedite licensing, reducecapital cost and construction time.

• A simpler and more rugged design, making them easier tooperate and less vulnerable to operational upsets.

• Higher availability and longer operating life, typically 60 years.

• Reduced possibility of core melt accidents.

• Minimal effect on the environment.

• Higher burn-up to reduce fuel use and the amount of waste.

• Burnable absorbers (‘poisons’) to extend fuel life.

To what extent these goals address issues of higher safetystandards, as opposed to improved economics, remains unclear.

Of the new reactor types, the European Pressurised Water Reactor(EPR) has been developed from the most recent Generation IIdesigns to start operation in France and Germany41. Its stated goalsare to improve safety levels - in particular, reduce the probability ofa severe accident by a factor of ten, achieve mitigation of severeaccidents by restricting their consequences to the plant itself, andreduce costs. Compared to its predecessors, however, the EPRdisplays several modifications which constitute a reduction ofsafety margins, including:

• The volume of the reactor building has been reduced bysimplifying the layout of the emergency core cooling system, and by using the results of new calculations which predict lesshydrogen development during an accident.

• The thermal output of the plant has been increased by 15%relative to existing French reactors by increasing core outlettemperature, letting the main coolant pumps run at highercapacity and modifying the steam generators.

• The EPR has fewer redundant pathways in its safety systemsthan a German Generation II reactor.

Several other modifications are hailed as substantial safetyimprovements, including a ‘core catcher’ system to control ameltdown accident. Nonetheless, in spite of the changes beingenvisaged, there is no guarantee that the safety level of the EPRactually represents a significant improvement. In particular,reduction of the expected core melt probability by a factor of ten isnot proven. Furthermore, there are serious doubts as to whether themitigation and control of a core melt accident with the core catcherconcept will actually work.

Finally, Generation IV reactors are currently being developed withthe aim of commercialisation in 20-30 years.

9

energ

y techn

olo

gies

|N

UC

LE

AR

references40 IAEA 2004; WNO 2004A41 HAINZ 2004

© G

P/C

UN

NIN

GH

AM

© J

UR

A/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

image SELLAFIELD NUCLEAR PLANT,CUMBRIA, UK.

image TEMELÍN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTIN THE CZECH REPUBLIC.

136

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

renewable energy technologies

Renewable energy covers a range of natural sources which areconstantly renewed and therefore, unlike fossil fuels and uranium,will never be exhausted. Most of them derive from the effect of thesun and moon on the Earth’s weather patterns. They also producenone of the harmful emissions and pollution associated with‘conventional’ fuels. Although hydroelectric power has been used onan industrial scale since the middle of the last century, the seriousexploitation of other renewable sources has a more recent history.

solar power (photovoltaics pv) There is more than enough solarradiation available all over the world to satisfy a vastly increaseddemand for solar power systems. The sunlight which reaches theEarth’s surface is enough to provide 2,850 times as much energy aswe can currently use. On a global average, each square metre of landis exposed to enough sunlight to produce 1,700 kWh of power everyyear. The average irradiation in Europe is about 1,000 kWh per squaremetre, however, compared with 1,800 kWh in the Middle East.

Photovoltaic (PV) technology involves the generation of electricityfrom light. The secret to this process is the use of a semiconductormaterial which can be adapted to release electrons, the negativelycharged particles that form the basis of electricity. The mostcommon semiconductor material used in photovoltaic cells is silicon,an element most commonly found in sand. All PV cells have at leasttwo layers of such semiconductors, one positively charged and onenegatively charged. When light shines on the semiconductor, theelectric field across the junction between these two layers causeselectricity to flow. The greater the intensity of the light, the greaterthe flow of electricity. A photovoltaic system does not therefore needbright sunlight in order to operate, and can generate electricity evenon cloudy days. Solar PV is different from a solar thermal collectingsystem (see below) where the sun’s rays are used to generate heat,usually for hot water in a house, swimming pool etc.

The most important parts of a PV system are the cells which formthe basic building blocks, the modules which bring together largenumbers of cells into a unit, and, in some situations, the invertersused to convert the electricity generated into a form suitable foreveryday use. When a PV installation is described as having acapacity of 3 kWp (peak), this refers to the output of the systemunder standard testing conditions, allowing comparison betweendifferent modules. In central Europe a 3 kWp rated solar electricitysystem, with a surface area of approximately 27 square metres,would produce enough power to meet the electricity demand of anenergy conscious household.

types of PV system

• grid connected The most popular type of solar PV system forhomes and businesses in the developed world. Connection to thelocal electricity network allows any excess power produced to besold to the utility. Electricity is then imported from the networkoutside daylight hours. An inverter is used to convert the DCpower produced by the system to AC power for running normalelectrical equipment.

• grid support A system can be connected to the local electricitynetwork as well as a back-up battery. Any excess solar electricityproduced after the battery has been charged is then sold to the network. This system is ideal for use in areas of unreliablepower supply.

• off-grid Completely independent of the grid, the system isconnected to a battery via a charge controller, which stores theelectricity generated and acts as the main power supply. Aninverter can be used to provide AC power, enabling the use ofnormal appliances. Typical off-grid applications are repeaterstations for mobile phones or rural electrification. Ruralelectrification means either small solar home systems coveringbasic electricity needs or solar mini grids, which are larger solarelectricity systems providing electricity for several households.

• hybrid system A solar system can be combined with anothersource of power - a biomass generator, a wind turbine or dieselgenerator - to ensure a consistent supply of electricity. A hybridsystem can be grid connected, stand alone or grid support.

9

energ

y techn

olo

gies

|R

EN

EW

AB

LE

EN

ER

GY

figure 9.1: photovoltaics technology

1. LIGHT (PHOTONS)

2. FRONT CONTACT GRID

3. ANTI-REFLECTION COATING

4. N-TYPE SEMICONDUCTOR

5. BOARDER LAYOUT

6. P-TYPE SEMICONDUCTOR

7. BACKCONTACT

1

2

345

6

7

137

concentrating solar power (CSP) Concentrating solar power(CSP) plants, also called solar thermal power plants, produceelectricity in much the same way as conventional power stations. Thedifference is that they obtain their energy input by concentratingsolar radiation and converting it to high temperature steam or gasto drive a turbine or motor engine. Large mirrors concentratesunlight into a single line or point. The heat created there is used togenerate steam. This hot, highly pressurised steam is used to powerturbines which generate electricity. In sun-drenched regions, CSPplants can guarantee a large proportion of electricity production.

Four main elements are required: a concentrator, a receiver, someform of transfer medium or storage, and power conversion. Manydifferent types of system are possible, including combinations withother renewable and non-renewable technologies, but the threemost promising solar thermal technologies are:

• parabolic trough Trough-shaped mirror reflectors are used toconcentrate sunlight on to thermally efficient receiver tubesplaced in the trough’s focal line. A thermal transfer fluid, such assynthetic thermal oil, is circulated in these tubes. Heated toapproximately 400°C by the concentrated sun’s rays, this oil isthen pumped through a series of heat exchangers to producesuperheated steam. The steam is converted to electrical energy ina conventional steam turbine generator, which can either be partof a conventional steam cycle or integrated into a combinedsteam and gas turbine cycle.

This is the most mature technology, with 354 MWe of plantsconnected to the Southern California grid since the 1980s andmore than 2 million square metres of parabolic trough collectorsinstalled worldwide.

• central receiver or solar tower A circular array of heliostats(large individually tracking mirrors) is used to concentrate sunlighton to a central receiver mounted at the top of a tower. A heat-transfer medium absorbs the highly concentrated radiation reflectedby the heliostats and converts it into thermal energy to be used forthe subsequent generation of superheated steam for turbineoperation. To date, the heat transfer media demonstrated includewater/steam, molten salts, liquid sodium and air. If pressurised gasor air is used at very high temperatures of about 1,000°C or moreas the heat transfer medium, it can even be used to directly replacenatural gas in a gas turbine, thus making use of the excellentefficiency (60%+) of modern gas and steam combined cycles.

After an intermediate scaling up to 30 MW capacity, solar towerdevelopers now feel confident that grid-connected tower powerplants can be built up to a capacity of 200 MWe solar-only units.Use of heat storage will increase their flexibility. Although solartower plants are considered to be further from commercialisationthan parabolic trough systems, they have good longer-termprospects for high conversion efficiencies. Projects are beingdeveloped in Spain, South Africa and Australia.

• parabolic dish A dish-shaped reflector is used to concentratesunlight on to a receiver located at its focal point. Theconcentrated beam radiation is absorbed into the receiver to heata fluid or gas to approximately 750°C. This is then used togenerate electricity in a small piston, Stirling engine or a microturbine, attached to the receiver.

The potential of parabolic dishes lies primarily for decentralisedpower supply and remote, stand-alone power systems. Projectsare currently planned in the United States, Australia and Europe.

9

energ

y techn

olo

gies

|R

EN

EW

AB

LE

EN

ER

GY

PARABOLICTROUGH

REFLECTOR

ABSORBER TUBE

SOLAR FIELD PIPING

PARABOLIC DISH

CENTRAL RECEIVER

HELIOSTATS

REFLECTOR

CENTRAL RECEIVER

RECEIVER/ENGINE

figures 9.2: parabolic trough/central receiver or solar tower/parabolic dish technology©

GP

/SO

LN

ES

S

image SOLAR PROJECT IN PHITSANULOK, THAILAND. SOLAR FACILITY OF THEINTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE AND SCHOOL FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY.

image SOLAR PANELS ON CONISTON STATION, NORTH WEST OF ALICE SPRINGS,NORTHERN TERRITORY.

© C

HR

IST

IAN

KA

ISE

R/G

P

138

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

solar thermal collectors Solar thermal collecting systems are basedon a centuries-old principle: the sun heats up water contained in a darkvessel. Solar thermal technologies on the market now are efficient andhighly reliable, providing energy for a wide range of applications - fromdomestic hot water and space heating in residential and commercialbuildings to swimming pool heating, solar-assisted cooling, industrialprocess heat and the desalination of drinking water.

solar domestic hot water and space heating Domestic hot waterproduction is the most common application. Depending on theconditions and the system’s configuration, most of a building’s hotwater requirements can be provided by solar energy. Larger systemscan additionally cover a substantial part of the energy needed forspace heating. There are two main types of technology:

• vacuum tubes The absorber inside the vacuum tube absorbsradiation from the sun and heats up the fluid inside. Additionalradiation is picked up from the reflector behind the tubes.Whatever the angle of the sun, the round shape of the vacuumtube allows it to reach the absorber. Even on a cloudy day, whenthe light is coming from many angles at once, the vacuum tubecollector can still be effective.

• flat panel This is basically a box with a glass cover which sits onthe roof like a skylight. Inside is a series of copper tubes withcopper fins attached. The entire structure is coated in a blacksubstance designed to capture the sun’s rays. These rays heat up awater and antifreeze mixture which circulates from the collectordown to the building’s boiler.

solar assisted cooling Solar chillers use thermal energy to producecooling and/or dehumidify the air in a similar way to a refrigeratoror conventional air-conditioning. This application is well-suited tosolar thermal energy, as the demand for cooling is often greatestwhen there is most sunshine. Solar cooling has been successfullydemonstrated and large-scale use can be expected in the future.

wind power Over the last 20 years, wind energy has become theworld’s fastest growing energy source. Today’s wind turbines areproduced by a sophisticated mass production industry employing atechnology that is efficient, cost effective and quick to install.Turbine sizes range from a few kW to over 5,000 kW, with thelargest turbines reaching more than 100m in height. One large windturbine can produce enough electricity for about 5,000 households.State-of-the-art wind farms today can be as small as a few turbinesand as large as several hundred MW.

The global wind resource is enormous, capable of generating moreelectricity than the world’s total power demand, and welldistributed across the five continents. Wind turbines can beoperated not just in the windiest coastal areas but in countrieswhich have no coastlines, including regions such as central EasternEurope, central North and South America, and central Asia. Thewind resource out at sea is even more productive than on land,encouraging the installation of offshore wind parks withfoundations embedded in the ocean floor. In Denmark, a wind parkbuilt in 2002 uses 80 turbines to produce enough electricity for acity with a population of 150,000.

Smaller wind turbines can produce power efficiently in areas thatotherwise have no access to electricity. This power can be useddirectly or stored in batteries. New technologies for using the wind’spower are also being developed for exposed buildings in denselypopulated cities.

wind turbine design Significant consolidation of wind turbinedesign has taken place since the 1980s. The majority of commercialturbines now operate on a horizontal axis with three evenly spacedblades. These are attached to a rotor from which power istransferred through a gearbox to a generator. The gearbox andgenerator are contained within a housing called a nacelle. Someturbine designs avoid a gearbox by using direct drive. The electricityoutput is then channelled down the tower to a transformer andeventually into the local grid network.

Wind turbines can operate from a wind speed of 3-4 metres persecond up to about 25 m/s. Limiting their power at high windspeeds is achieved either by ‘stall’ regulation – reducing the poweroutput – or ‘pitch’ control – changing the angle of the blades sothat they no longer offer any resistance to the wind. Pitch controlhas become the most common method. The blades can also turn ata constant or variable speed, with the latter enabling the turbine tofollow more closely the changing wind speed.

9

energ

y techn

olo

gies

|R

EN

EW

AB

LE

EN

ER

GY

figure 9.3: flat panel solar technology

139

The main design drivers for current wind technology are:

• high productivity at both low and high wind sites

• grid compatibility

• acoustic performance

• aerodynamic performance

• visual impact

• offshore expansion

Although the existing offshore market is only just over 1% of theworld’s land-based installed wind capacity, the latest developmentsin wind technology are primarily driven by this emerging potential.This means that the focus is on the most effective ways to makevery large turbines.

Modern wind technology is available for a range of sites - low and highwind speeds, desert and arctic climates. European wind farms operatewith high availability, are generally well integrated with the environmentand accepted by the public. In spite of repeated predictions of a levellingoff at an optimum mid-range size, and the fact that wind turbinescannot get larger indefinitely, turbine size has increased year on year -from units of 20-60 kW in California in the 1980s up to the latestmulti-MW machines with rotor diameters over 100 m. The average sizeof turbine installed around the world during 2007 was 1,492 kW, whilstthe largest machine in operation is the Enercon E126, with a rotordiameter of 126 metres and a power capacity of 6 MW.

This growth in turbine size has been matched by the expansion ofboth markets and manufacturers. Almost 100,000 wind turbinesnow operate in over 50 countries around the world. The Germanmarket is the largest, but there has also been impressive growth inSpain, Denmark, India, China and the United States.

biomass energy Biomass is a broad term used to describe materialof recent biological origin that can be used as a source of energy.This includes wood, crops, algae and other plants as well asagricultural and forest residues. Biomass can be used for a varietyof end uses: heating, electricity generation or as fuel fortransportation. The term ‘bio energy’ is used for biomass energysystems that produce heat and/or electricity and ‘bio fuels’ forliquid fuels used in transport. Biodiesel manufactured from variouscrops has become increasingly used as vehicle fuel, especially as thecost of oil has risen.

Biological power sources are renewable, easily stored, and, ifsustainably harvested, CO2 neutral. This is because the gas emittedduring their transfer into useful energy is balanced by the carbondioxide absorbed when they were growing plants.

Electricity generating biomass power plants work just like naturalgas or coal power stations, except that the fuel must be processedbefore it can be burned. These power plants are generally not aslarge as coal power stations because their fuel supply needs to growas near as possible to the plant. Heat generation from biomasspower plants can result either from utilising a Combined Heat andPower (CHP) system, piping the heat to nearby homes or industry,or through dedicated heating systems. Small heating systems usingspecially produced pellets made from waste wood, for example, canbe used to heat single family homes instead of natural gas or oil.

9

energ

y techn

olo

gies

|R

EN

EW

AB

LE

EN

ER

GY

figure 9.4: wind turbine technology figure 9.5: biomass technology

1. HEATED MIXER

2. CONTAINMENT FOR FERMENTATION

3. BIOGAS STORAGE

4. COMBUSTION ENGINE

5. GENERATOR

6. WASTE CONTAINMENT

1. ROTOR BLADE

2. BLADE ADJUSTMENT

3. NACELL

4. ROTOR SHAFT

5. WIND MEASUREMENT

6. GENERATOR

7. SYSTEM CONTROL

8. LIFT

1

2

3

4 5 6

1

2

3

4

5

67

8

© P

AU

L L

AN

GR

OC

K/Z

EN

IT/G

P

© P

. PE

TE

RS

EN

/DR

EA

MST

IMEimage THE BIOENERGY VILLAGE OF JUEHNDE, WHICH IS THE FIRST COMMUNITY IN

GERMANY THAT PRODUCES ALL ITS ENERGY NEEDED FOR HEATING AND ELECTRICITYWITH CO2 NEUTRAL BIOMASS.

image VESTAS VM 80 WIND TURBINES AT AN OFFSHORE WIND PARK IN THE WESTERNPART OF DENMARK.

140

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

biomass technology A number of processes can be used to convertenergy from biomass. These divide into thermal systems, whichinvolve direct combustion of solids, liquids or a gas via pyrolysis orgasification, and biological systems, which involve decomposition ofsolid biomass to liquid or gaseous fuels by processes such asanaerobic digestion and fermentation.

• thermal systems Direct combustion is the most common way of convertingbiomass to energy, for heat as well as electricity. Worldwide itaccounts for over 90% of biomass generation. Technologies canbe distinguished as either fixed bed, fluidised bed or entrainedflow combustion. In fixed bed combustion, such as a gratefurnace, primary air passes through a fixed bed, in which drying,gasification and charcoal combustion takes place. Thecombustible gases produced are burned after the addition ofsecondary air, usually in a zone separated from the fuel bed. Influidised bed combustion, the primary combustion air is injectedfrom the bottom of the furnace with such high velocity that thematerial inside the furnace becomes a seething mass of particlesand bubbles. Entrained flow combustion is suitable for fuelsavailable as small particles, such as sawdust or fine shavings,which are pneumatically injected into the furnace.

Gasification Biomass fuels are increasingly being used withadvanced conversion technologies, such as gasification systems,which offer superior efficiencies compared with conventionalpower generation. Gasification is a thermochemical process inwhich biomass is heated with little or no oxygen present toproduce a low energy gas. The gas can then be used to fuel a gasturbine or combustion engine to generate electricity. Gasificationcan also decrease emission levels compared to power productionwith direct combustion and a steam cycle.

Pyrolysis is a process whereby biomass is exposed to hightemperatures in the absence of air, causing the biomass todecompose. The products of pyrolysis always include gas(‘biogas’), liquid (‘bio-oil’) and solid (‘char’), with the relativeproportions of each depending on the fuel characteristics, themethod of pyrolysis and the reaction parameters, such astemperature and pressure. Lower temperatures produce moresolid and liquid products and higher temperatures more biogas.

• biological systems These processes are suitable for very wet biomass materials suchas food or agricultural wastes, including farm animal slurry.

Anaerobic digestion means the breakdown of organic waste bybacteria in an oxygen-free environment. This produces a biogastypically made up of 65% methane and 35% carbon dioxide. Purifiedbiogas can then be used both for heating and electricity generation.

Fermentation Fermentation is the process by which growing plantswith a high sugar and starch content are broken down with thehelp of micro-organisms to produce ethanol and methanol. The endproduct is a combustible fuel that can be used in vehicles.

Biomass power station capacities typically range up to 15 MW,but larger plants are possible of up to 400 MW capacity, withpart of the fuel input potentially being fossil fuel, for examplepulverised coal. The world’s largest biomass fuelled power plant islocated at Pietarsaari in Finland. Built in 2001, this is anindustrial CHP plant producing steam (100 MWth) andelectricity (240 MWe) for the local forest industry and districtheat for the nearby town. The boiler is a circulating fluidised bedboiler designed to generate steam from bark, sawdust, woodresidues, commercial bio fuel and peat.

A 2005 study commissioned by Greenpeace Netherlandsconcluded that it was technically possible to build and operate a1,000 MWe biomass fired power plant using fluidised bedcombustion technology and fed with wood residue pellets42.

bio fuels Converting crops into ethanol and bio diesel made fromrapeseed methyl ester (RME) currently takes place mainly in Brazil,the USA and Europe. Processes for obtaining synthetic fuels from‘biogenic synthesis’ gases will also play a larger role in the future.Theoretically bio fuels can be produced from any biological carbonsource, although the most common are photosynthetic plants. Variousplants and plant-derived materials are used for bio fuel production. Globally bio fuels are most commonly used to power vehicles, but canalso be used for other purposes. The production and use of bio fuelsmust result in a net reduction in carbon emissions compared to the useof traditional fossil fuels to have a positive effect in climate changemitigation. Sustainable bio fuels can reduce the dependency onpetroleum and thereby enhance energy security.

Bio ethanol is a fuel manufactured through the fermentation ofsugars. This is done by accessing sugars directly (sugar cane or beet)or by breaking down starch in grains such as wheat, rye, barley ormaize. In the European Union bio ethanol is mainly produced fromgrains, with wheat as the dominant feedstock. In Brazil the preferredfeedstock is sugar cane, whereas in the USA it is corn (maize). Bioethanol produced from cereals has a by-product, a protein-rich animalfeed called Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DDGS). For everytonne of cereals used for ethanol production, on average one third willenter the animal feed stream as DDGS. Because of its high proteinlevel this is currently used as a replacement for soy cake. Bio ethanolcan either be blended into gasoline (petrol) directly or be used in theform of ETBE (Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether).

Bio diesel is a fuel produced from vegetable oil sourced from rapeseed,sunflower seeds or soybeans as well as used cooking oils or animal fats.Bio diesel comes in a standard form as ‘mono-alkyl ester’ and otherkinds of diesel-grade fuels of biological origin are not included. Inspecific cases, used vegetable oils can be recycled as feedstock for biodiesel production. This can reduce the loss of used oils in theenvironment and provides a new way of transforming a waste intotransport energy. Blends of bio diesel and conventional hydrocarbon-based diesel are the most common products distributed in the retailtransport fuel market.

Most countries use a labelling system to explain the proportion of biodiesel in any fuel mix. Fuel containing 20% biodiesel is labelled B20,while pure bio diesel is referred to as B100. Blends of 20 % bio dieselwith 80 % petroleum diesel (B20) can generally be used in unmodifieddiesel engines. Used in its pure form (B100) an engine may requirecertain modifications. Bio diesel can also be used as a heating fuel indomestic and commercial boilers. Older furnaces may contain rubberparts that would be affected by bio diesel’s solvent properties, but canotherwise burn it without any conversion.

9

energ

y techn

olo

gies

|R

EN

EW

AB

LE

EN

ER

GY

references42 ‘OPPORTUNITIES FOR 1,000 MWE BIOMASS-FIRED POWER PLANT IN THENETHERLANDS’, GREENPEACE NETHERLANDS, 2005

141

geothermal energy Geothermal energy is heat derived from deepunderneath the Earth’s crust. In most areas, this heat reaches thesurface in a very diffuse state. However, due to a variety ofgeological processes, some areas, including the western part of theUSA, west and central eastern Europe, Iceland, Asia and NewZealand are underlain by relatively shallow geothermal resources.These are classified as either low temperature (less than 90°C),moderate temperature (90° - 150°C) or high temperature (greaterthan 150°C). The uses to which these resources can be put dependon the temperature. The highest temperature is generally used onlyfor electric power generation. Current global geothermal generationcapacity totals approximately 8,000 MW. Uses for low andmoderate temperature resources can be divided into two categories:direct use and ground-source heat pumps.

Geothermal power plants use the Earth’s natural heat to vapourisewater or an organic medium. The steam created then powers aturbine which produces electricity. In New Zealand and Iceland thistechnique has been used extensively for decades. In Germany, whereit is necessary to drill many kilometres down to reach the necessarytemperatures, it is only in the trial stages. Geothermal heat plantsrequire lower temperatures and the heated water is used directly.

hydro power Water has been used to produce electricity for abouta century. Today, around one fifth of the world’s electricity isproduced from hydro power. Large hydroelectric power plants withconcrete dams and extensive collecting lakes often have verynegative effects on the environment, however, requiring the floodingof habitable areas. Smaller ‘run-of-the-river’ power stations, whichare turbines powered by one section of running water in a river, canproduce electricity in an environmentally friendly way.

The main requirement for hydro power is to create an artificialhead so that water, diverted through an intake channel or pipe intoa turbine, discharges back into the river downstream. Small hydropower is mainly ‘run-of-the-river’ and does not collect significantamounts of stored water, requiring the construction of large damsand reservoirs. There are two broad categories of turbines: impulseturbines (notably the Pelton) in which a jet of water impinges onthe runner designed to reverse the direction of the jet and therebyextracts momentum from the water. This turbine is suitable for highheads and ‘small’ discharges. Reaction turbines (notably Francisand Kaplan) run full of water and in effect generate hydrodynamic‘lift’ forces to propel the runner blades. These turbines are suitablefor medium to low heads, and medium to large discharges.

9

energ

y techn

olo

gies

|R

EN

EW

AB

LE

EN

ER

GY

figure 9.6: geothermal technology figure 9.7: hydro technology

1. PUMP

2. HEAT EXCHANGER

3. GAS TURBINE & GENERATOR

4. DRILLING HOLE FOR COLD WATER INJECTION

5. DRILLING HOLE FOR WARM WATER EXTRACTION

1. INLET

2. SIEVE

3. GENERATOR

4. TURBINE

5. HEAD

6. OUTLET

1 23

4 5

12

3

4

5

6

© B

. ER

ICK

SO

N/D

RE

AM

STIM

Eimage GEOTHERMAL POWER STATION,NORTH ISLAND, NEW ZEALAND.

image GEOTHERMAL ACTIVITY.

© J

. GO

UG

H/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

142

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

ocean energy

tidal power Tidal power can be harnessed by constructing a damor barrage across an estuary or bay with a tidal range of at leastfive metres. Gates in the barrage allow the incoming tide to build upin a basin behind it. The gates then close so that when the tide flowsout the water can be channelled through turbines to generateelectricity. Tidal barrages have been built across estuaries inFrance, Canada and China but a mixture of high cost projectionscoupled with environmental objections to the effect on estuarialhabitats has limited the technology’s further expansion.

wave and tidal stream power In wave power generation, astructure interacts with the incoming waves, converting this energyto electricity through a hydraulic, mechanical or pneumatic powertake-off system. The structure is kept in position by a mooringsystem or placed directly on the seabed/seashore. Power istransmitted to the seabed by a flexible submerged electrical cableand to shore by a sub-sea cable.

Wave power converters can be made up from connected groups ofsmaller generator units of 100 – 500 kW, or several mechanical orhydraulically interconnected modules can supply a single largerturbine generator unit of 2 – 20 MW. The large waves needed tomake the technology more cost effective are mostly found at greatdistances from the shore, however, requiring costly sub-sea cables totransmit the power. The converters themselves also take up largeamounts of space. Wave power has the advantage of providing amore predictable supply than wind energy and can be located in theocean without much visual intrusion.

There is no commercially leading technology on wave powerconversion at present. Different systems are being developed at seafor prototype testing. The largest grid-connected system installed sofar is the 2.25 MW Pelamis, with linked semi-submergedcyclindrical sections, operating off the coast of Portugal. Mostdevelopment work has been carried out in the UK.

9

energ

y techn

olo

gies

|R

EN

EW

AB

LE

EN

ER

GY

© M

AX

FX

/DR

EA

MST

IME

© M

CD

ON

NE

LL

/IST

OC

K

© U

SC

HI

HE

RIN

G/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

images 1. BIOMASS CROPS. 2. OCEAN ENERGY. 3. CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER (CSP).

1

2 3

143

10energy efficiency – more with less

GLOBAL POTENTIAL FOR ENERGY EFFICIENTIMPROVEMENTS

THE LOW ENERGY HOUSEHOLDTHE STANDARD HOUSEHOLD

“today, we are wastingtwo thirds (61%) of theelectricity we consume,mostly due to badproduct design.”GREENPEACE INTERNATIONALCLIMATE CAMPAIGN

10

IN N

OR

TH

AM

ER

ICA

AL

ON

E W

E C

OU

LD

SH

UT

DO

WN

16

DIR

TY

PO

WE

RP

LA

NT

S B

YC

HA

NG

ING

TO

CF

LS

AN

D L

ED

S. I

N E

UR

OP

E W

E C

OU

LD

SH

UT

DO

WN

11

. ©

DZ

AR

EK

/DR

EA

MST

IME

144

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

Using energy efficiently is cheaper than producing fresh energy andoften has multiple positive effects. An efficient clothes washingmachine or dishwasher, for example uses less power and less water.Efficiency also usually provides a higher level of comfort. A well-insulated house, for instance, will feel warmer in the winter, coolerin the summer and be healthier to live in. An efficient refrigeratorwill make less noise, have no frost inside, no condensation outsideand will probably last longer. Efficient lighting will offer you morelight where you need it. Efficiency is thus really ‘more with less’.

There are very simple steps a householder can take, such as puttingadditional insulation in the roof, using super-insulating glazing orbuying a high-efficiency washing machine when the old one wearsout. All of these examples will save both money and energy. But thebiggest savings will not be found in such incremental steps. The realgains come from rethinking the whole concept - ‘the whole house’,‘the whole car’ or even ‘the whole transport system’. When you dothis, energy needs can often be cut back by four to ten times.

In order to find out the global and regional energy efficiencypotential, the Dutch institute Ecofys developed energy demandscenarios for this update of the Greenpeace Energy [R]evolutionanalysis. These scenarios cover energy demand over the period2005-2050 for ten world regions. Two low energy demand scenariosfor energy efficiency improvements have been defined. The first isbased on the best technical energy efficiency potentials and iscalled ‘Technical’. The second is based on more moderate energysavings taking into account implementation constraints in terms ofcosts and other barriers. This scenario is called ‘Revolution’. Themain results of the study are summarised below.

The starting point for the Ecofys analysis is that worldwide finalenergy demand is expected to grow by 95%, from 290 EJ in 2005to 570 EJ in 2050, if we continue with business as usual. In thelight of increasing fossil fuel prices, depleting resources and climatechange, business as usual is simply not an option.

Growth in the transport sector is projected to be the largest, withenergy demand expected to grow from 84 EJ in 2005 to 183 EJ in2050. Demand for buildings and agriculture is expected to grow theleast, from 91 EJ in 2005 to 124 EJ in 2050.

Under the energy [r]evolution scenario, however,growth in energy demand can be limited to anincrease of 28% up to 2050 in comparison to the 2005level, whilst taking into account implementationconstraints in terms of costs and other barriers.In Figure 10.2 the potential for energy efficiency improvements underthis scenario are presented. The baseline is 2005 final energy demandper region. Table 10.1 shows that total worldwide energy demand hasreduced to 376 PJ by 2050, with a breakdown by sector.

10

energ

y efficiency

|P

OT

EN

TIA

L

figure 10.1: reference scenario (business as usual) for worldwide final energy demand by sector

Fina

l ene

rgy

dem

and

(EJ)

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

•TRANSPORT FINAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION

•TRANSPORT

• BUILDINGS AND AGRICULTURE - FUELS

• INDUSTRY - FUELS (EXCLUDING FEEDSTOCKS)

• BUILDINGS AND AGRICULTURE - ELECTRICITY

• INDUSTRY - ELECTRICITY

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

145

10

energ

y efficiency

|P

OT

EN

TIA

L

table 10.1: change in energy demand by 2050 in comparison to 2005 level

[R]EVOLUTIONSCENARIO

+32%

+11%

+38%

+28%

REFERENCESCENARIO

+101%

+119%

+74%

+95%

SECTOR

Industry

Transport

Buildings and Agriculture

Total

OECD North

America

figure 10.2: potential for energy efficiency improvements per region in energy [r]evolution scenarioENERGY DEMAND FOR ALL SECTORS (NORMALISED BASED ON 2005 PJ)

• BUILDINGS

• INDUSTRY

•TRANSPORT

•TOTAL / REMAINING ENERGY DEMAND

450%

400%

350%

300%

250%

200%

150%

100%

50%

PJ 0

2005

2050

OECD Pacific

2005

2050

OECD Europe

2005

2050

TransitionEconomies

2005

2050

China

2005

2050

India

2005

2050

DevelopingAsia

2005

2050

Middle East

2005

2050

LatinAmerica

2005

2050

Africa

2005

2050

© D

RE

AM

STIM

E

© K

. ST

OZ

EK

/DR

EA

MST

IME

image STANDBY.

image WORK TEAM APPLYINGSTYROFOAM WALL INSULATION TO ANEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDING.

146

10

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

figure 10.3: energy efficient households

147

Since homes account for the largest share of energy demand frombuildings, this section examines in detail the savings potential inhouseholds. Breakdowns of electricity use in the core EU-15countries and the new member states are given in Figure 10.4 andFigure 10.5. A breakdown of electricity demand in the servicessector can be found in Figure 10.6.

Based on the results from three studies43, we have assumed thefollowing breakdowns for energy use (fuel and electricity) under theReference Scenario in 2050. Insufficient information is available tomake a breakdown by world region. We assume however that thepattern for different regions will converge over the years.

10

energ

y efficient h

ou

seho

lds

|C

ON

SU

MP

TIO

N

© M

BI/

DR

EA

MST

IME

images POWER SOCKETS AND SWITCH.

© G

OO

RY

/DR

EA

MST

IME

• REFRIGERATORS & FREEZERS

•WASHING MACHINES

• DISHWASHERS

• DRIERS

• ROOM AIR-CONDITIONERS

• ELECTRIC STORAGE & WATER HEATER

• ELECTRIC OVENS

• ELECTRIC HOBS

• CONSUMER ELECTRONICS & OTHER EQUIPMENT STAND-BY

• LIGHTING

•TV ON MODE

• OFFICE EQUIPMENT

• RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC HEATING

• CENTRAL HEATING CIRCULATION PUMPS

•MISCELLANEOUS

figure 10.4: breakdown of electricity use for residentialend-use equipment in EU-15 countries in 2004 (BERTOLDI & ATANASIU, 2006)

15%

4%

2%

2%1%

12%

4%

22%

9%

2%

5%1%

6%3%12%

•HEATING & COOLING

• LIGHTING

• REFRIGERATORS/FREEZERS

•WASHING MACHINES

• COOKING DISHWASHER

• ELECTRIC STORAGE & WATER HEATER

• CONSUMER ELECTRONICS & STAND-BY

•MISCELLANEOUS

figure 10.5: breakdown of electricity use for residentialend-use equipment in EU new member states in 2004 (BERTOLDI & ATANASIU, 2006)

22.4%20%

9.9%

10.5%

10.3%

6.7%

7%13.1%

• CONVEYORS

• COOKING

• PUMPS

• SPACE & WATER HEATING

•MISCELLANEOUS

• COOLING & VENTILATION

• COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION

• COMMERCIAL & STREET LIGHTING

• OFFICE EQUIPMENT

figure 10.6: breakdown of electricity consumption in the EU services sector (BERTOLDI & ATANASIU, 2006)

6%

6%

4%8%

32%

20%

2%

15%7%

references43 BERTOLDI, P. AND B. ATANASIU. ‘ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION AND EFFICIENCYTRENDS IN THE ENLARGED EUROPEAN UNION - STATUS REPORT 2006’, INSTITUTE FORENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY, OECD/IEA (2006) AND WBCSD (2005)

the low energy household

Technologies to reduce energy demand applied in this typicalhousehold are45:

• Triple-glazed windows with low emittance coatings. Thesewindows greatly reduce heat loss to 40% compared to windowswith one layer. The low emittance coating prevents energy wavesin sunlight coming through, reducing the need for cooling.

• Insulation of roofs, walls, floors and basement. Proper insulationreduces heating and cooling demand by 50% in comparison totypical energy demand.

• Passive solar techniques make use of solar energy through thebuilding’s design - siting and window orientation. The term‘passive’ indicates that no mechanical equipment is used. Allsolar gains come through the windows.

• Balanced ventilation with heat recovery means that heated indoorair is channelled to a heat recovery unit and used to heatincoming outdoor air.

Current space heating demands in kJ per square metre per heatingdegree day for OECD dwellings are given in the table below.

148

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

Since an estimated 80% of fuel use in buildings is for spaceheating, the energy efficiency improvement potential here isconsidered to be large. In order to determine the potential forefficiency improvement in space heating we looked at the energydemand per m2 floor area per heating degree day (HDD). Heatingdegree days indicate the number of degrees that a day’s averagetemperature is under 18°C, the temperature below which buildingsneed to be heated.

The typical current heating demand for dwellings is 70-120 kJ/m2 44.Dwellings with a low energy use consume below 32 kJ/m2/, however,more than 70% less than the current level.

10

energ

y efficient h

ou

seho

lds

|L

OW

EN

ER

GY

HO

US

EH

OL

D

table 10.2: break down of energy use in households

ELECTRICITY USE 2050

Air conditioning (8%)

Lighting (15%)

Standby (8%)

Cold appliances (15%)

Appliances (30%)

Other (e.g. electric heating) (24%)

FUEL USE 2050

Hot water (15%)

Cooking (5%)

Space heating (80%)

table 10.3: space heating demands in OECD dwellings in 2004

SPACE HEATING (KJ/M2/HDD)

113

78

52

REGION

OECD Europe

OECD North America

OECD Pacific

source OECD/IEA, 2007

references44 BERTOLDI, P. AND B. ATANASIU. ‘ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION AND EFFICIENCYTRENDS IN THE ENLARGED EUROPEAN UNION - STATUS REPORT 2006’, INSTITUTE FORENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY, OECD/IEA (2006) AND WBCSD (2005)45 BASED ON WBCSD (2005), IEA (2006), JOOSEN ET AL (2002)

149

space heating savings for new buildings We have assumed underthe Energy [R]evolution Scenario that from 2010 onwards, all newdwellings will be low energy buildings using 48 kJ/m2/HDD. Sincethere is no data on current average energy consumption fordwellings in non-OECD countries, we have had to make assumptionsfor these regions. The potential for fuel savings46 is considered to besmall in developing regions and about the same as the OECD in theTransition Economies. From this study we have taken the potentialfor developing regions to be equal to a 1.4% energy efficiencyimprovement per year, including replacing existing homes with moreenergy efficient housing (retrofitting). For the Transition Economieswe have assumed the average OECD savings potential. For newhomes, the savings compared to the average current dwelling aregiven in Table 10.4.

10

energ

y efficient h

ou

seho

lds

|L

OW

EN

ER

GY

HO

US

EH

OL

D

table 10.4: savings for space heating in new buildings in comparison to typical current dwellings

[R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

58%

38%

8%

35%

REGION

OECD Europe

OECD North America

OECD Pacific

EIT

space heating savings by retrofit As well as constructing efficientnew buildings there is a large savings potential to be found inretrofitting existing buildings. Important retrofit options are moreefficient windows and insulation. According to the OECD/IEA, thefirst can save 39% of space heating energy demand while the lattercan save 32% of space heating or cooling. Energy consumption inexisting buildings in Europe could therefore decrease by more than50%47. In OECD Europe and for the other regions we assume thesame relative reductions as for new buildings, to take into accountcurrent average efficiency of dwellings in the regions. For existinghomes, the savings compared to the average current dwelling aregiven in the table below.

In order to calculate the overall potential we need to know theshare of new and existing buildings in 2050. The United NationsEconomic Commission for Europe database48 contains data on thetotal housing stock, the increase from new construction andpopulation. We have assumed that the total housing stock growsalong with the population. The number of existing dwellings alsodecreases each year due to a certain level of replacement. Onaverage this is about 1.3% of the total housing stock per year,meaning a 40% replacement over 40 years, the equivalent of anaverage house lifetime of 100 years. Figure 10.6 shows how thefuture housing stock could develop in The Netherlands.

table 10.5: savings for space heating in existingbuildings in comparison to a current average dwelling

[R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

40%

26%

5%

24%

REGION

OECD Europe

OECD North America

OECD Pacific

EIT

© K

EL

PF

ISH

/DR

EA

MST

IME

© I

ND

YK

B/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

image A ROOM AT A NEWLY CONSTRUCTEDHOME IS SPRAYED WITH LIQUIDINSULATING FOAM BEFORE THE DRYWALLIS ADDED.

image FUTURISTIC SOLAR HEATED HOMEMADE FROM CEMENT AND PARTIALLYCOVERED IN THE EARTH.

references46 ÜRGE-VORSATZ & NOVIKOVA (2008)47 OECD/IEA,200648 UNECE, ‘HUMAN SETTLEMENT DATABASE’, 2008

150

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

This example illustrates that new dwellings in The Netherlands (andtherefore OECD Europe) make up 7% of the total housing stock in2050 and retrofits account for 41%. Although the UNECE databasedoes not have data for countries in all regions of the world, thepercentages of new and retrofit houses in 2050 are not dependent onthe absolute number of dwellings but only on the rate of populationgrowth and the 1.3% assumption. This means that we can use thepopulation growth to make forecasts for other regions (see Table 10.6).

Total savings for space heating energy demand are calculated bymultiplying the savings potentials for new and existing houses bythe forecast share of dwellings in 2050 to get a weighed percentagereduction. For fuel use for hot water we have assumed the sameannual percentage reduction as for space heating. For cooking wehave assumed a 1.5% per year efficiency improvement.

electricity savings by application

In order to determine savings for electricity demand in buildings, we examined the energy use and potential savings for the followingdifferent elements of power consumption:

• Standby

• Lighting

• Set-top boxes

• Freezers/fridges

• Computers/servers

• Air conditioning

1. standby power consumption Standby power consumption is the"lowest power consumption which cannot be switched off(influenced) by the user and may persist for an indefinite time whenan appliance is connected to the mains electricity supply"49. In otherwords, the energy available when an appliance is connected to thepower supply is not being used. Some appliances also consumeenergy when they are not on standby and are also not being used fortheir primary function, for example when an appliance has reachedthe end of a cycle but the ‘on’ button is still engaged. Thisconsumption does not fit into the definition of standby power butcould still account for a substantial amount of energy use.

Reducing standby losses provides a major opportunity for cost-effective energy savings. Nowadays, many appliances can beremotely and/or instantly activated or have a continuous digitaldisplay, and therefore require a standby mode. Standby poweraccounts for 20–90W per home in developed nations, ranging from4 to 10% of total residential electricity use50 and 3-12% of totalresidential electricity use worldwide51. Printers use 30-40% of theirfull power requirement when idle, as do televisions and musicequipment. Set-top boxes used in conjunction with televisions tend toconsume even more energy on standby than in use. Typical standbyuse of different types of electrical devices is shown in Figure 10.8.

10

energ

y efficient h

ou

seho

lds

|L

OW

EN

ER

GY

HO

US

EH

OL

D

table 10.6: forecast share of new dwellings in the housing stock in 2050

NEW DWELLINGS

DUE TOPOPULATIONGROWTH AS

SHARE OF TOTAL IN 2050

7%

35%

1%

0%

43%

12%

48%

40%

61%

71%

NEW DWELLINGS

DUE TOREPLACEMENT

OF OLDBUILDINGS AS

SHARE OF TOTALDWELLINGS

IN 2050

41%

29%

44%

45%

25%

39%

23%

27%

17%

13%

EXISTINGBUILDINGS

52%

36%

55%

55%

32%

49%

29%

33%

22%

16%

REGION

OECD Europe

OECD North America

OECD Pacific

Transition Economies

India

China

Developing Asia

Latin America

Middle East

Africa

figure 10.7: future housing stock development in the netherlands

dwel

lings

(th

ousa

nds)

2010 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050

•TOTAL DWELLING STOCK

• ORIGINAL DWELLINGS

• 2005 DWELLINGS

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

references49 UNITED KINGDOM MARKET TRANSFORMATION PROGRAMME, ‘BNXS15: STANDBYPOWER CONSUMPTION - DOMESTIC APPLIANCES’, 200850 MEIER, A., J. LIN, J. LIU, T. LI‚ ‘STANDBY POWER USE IN CHINESE HOMES’, ENERGYAND BUILDINGS 36, PP. 1211-1216, 2004 51 MEIER, A, ‘A WORLDWIDE REVIEW OF STANDBY POWER IN HOMES’, LAWRENCEBERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 2001

151

In developing nations, the amount of appliances per household isgrowing (see Figure 10.9 for China). In China, standby energy useaccounts for 50–200 kWh per year in an average urban home.

Overall, residential standby power consumption inChina requires the electrical output equivalent to atleast six 500 MW power plants.

Levels of standby power use in Chinese homes (on average 29W) are below those in developed countries but still high because Chineseappliances have a higher level of standby operation. Existingtechnologies are available to greatly reduce standby power at a low cost.

By 2050, standby use is expected to be responsible for 8% of totalelectricity demand across all regions of the world. The WorldBusiness Council for Sustainable Development has assessed that aworldwide savings potential of between 72% and 82% is feasible.This is confirmed by research in The Netherlands52 which showedthat reducing the amount of power available for standby in alldevices to just 1W would lead to a saving of approximately 77%.We have adopted these reduction percentages for the Technicalscenario (82% reduction) and the [R]evolution Scenario (72%reduction). This means an energy efficiency improvement of 4.2%per year in the Technical scenario and 3.1% per year in the[R]evolution Scenario.

10

energ

y efficient h

ou

seho

lds

|L

OW

EN

ER

GY

HO

US

EH

OL

D

figure 10.8: electricity use of standby power for different devices(HARMELINK ET AL., 2005)

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

GWh 01995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

•WASHING MACHINE/DRIER

• ELECTRIC TOOTH BRUSH

•TELEVISION

• ELECTRONIC SYSTEM BOILER

•MODEM

• PRINTER

• PERSONAL COMPUTER

• ALARM SYSTEM

• STANDBY VIDEO

• STANDBY AUDIO

•ELECTRONIC CONTROL WHITE GOODS

• SENSOR LAMP

• NIGHT LAMP (CHILDREN)

• ELECTRONIC CLOCK RADIO

• DECODER

• STATELLITE SYSTEM

• DOORBELL TRANSFORMER

• COFFEE MAKER CLOCK

• OVEN CLOCK

•MICROWAVE CLOCK

• CRUMB-SWEEPER

• ANSWERING MACHINE

• CORDLES TELEPHONE

figure 10.9: level of saturation in population for major appliances in china(MEIER ET AL., 2004)

satu

rati

on (

%)

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

•CLOTHES WASHER

• COLOR TV

• REFRIGERATOR

• AC

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

© C

RE

ASE

NCE

SRO/

DR

EA

MST

IMEimage FRIDGE.

image POWER PLUGS.

© T

. TR

OJA

NOW

SKI/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

references52 HARMELINK M., K. BLOK, M. CHANG, W. GRAUS, S. JOOSEN, ‘OPTIONS TO SPEED UPENERGY SAVINGS IN THE NETHERLANDS (MOGELIJKHEDEN VOOR VERSNELLING VANENERGIEBESPARING IN NEDERLAND)’, ECOFYS, UTRECHT, 2005

152

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

2. lighting Incandescent bulbs have been the most common lamps fora more than 100 years. These are the most inefficient type of lighting,however, since up to 95% of the electricity is converted into heat53.Incandescent lamps have a relatively short life-span (average ofapproximately 1,000 hours) but have a low initial cost and optimalcolour rendering. CFLs (Compact Fluorescent Lamps) are moreexpensive than incandescent bulbs but they use about 75% lessenergy, produce 75% less heat and last about ten times longer54. CFLsare available in different sizes and shapes, for indoors and outdoors.

The usage pattern for different lighting technologies in differentcountries is shown in Figure 10.10 (LFL = Linear Fluorescent Lamp).

Globally, people consume 3 Mega-lumen-hrs (Mlmh) of residentialelectric light per capita/year. The average North American uses 13.2Mlmh, the average Chinese 1.5 Mlmh - still 300 times the averageartificial per capita light use in England in the nineteenth century.The average Japanese uses 18.5 Mlmh and the average European orAustralian 2.7Mlmh. There is a clear relationship between GDP percapita and lighting consumption in Mlmh/cap/yr (see Figure 10.11).

It is important to realise that lighting energy savings are not just aquestion of using more efficient lamps but also involve otherapproaches. These include making smarter use of daylight, reducinglight absorption by luminaires (the fixture in which the lamp ishoused), optimising lighting levels (levels in OECD countriescommonly exceed recommended values), using automatic controls(turn off when no one is present, dim artificial light in response torising daylight) and retrofitting buildings to make better use ofdaylight. Buildings designed to optimise daylight can receive up to70% of their annual illumination needs from daylight, while a typicalbuilding will only get 20 to 25%55. In a study by Bertoldi & Atanasiu(2006), national lighting consumption and CFL penetration data ispresented for the EU-27 countries (and candidate country Croatia).We used this data as the basis for household penetration rates andlighting electricity consumption in OECD Europe. As well as standby,lighting is an important source of cost-effective savings. The IEApublication “Light’s Labour’s Lost” (2006) projects that the cost-effective savings potential from energy efficient lighting in 2030 is atleast 38% of lighting electricity consumption, even disregardingnewer and promising solid state lighting technologies such as lightemitting diodes (LEDs). In order to determine the savings potentialfor lighting, it is important to know the percentage of householdswith energy efficient lamps and the penetration level of these lamps.Based on Bertoldi & Atanasiu (2006) and Waide (2006) wecalculated the shares shown in Table 10.7.

10

energ

y efficient h

ou

seho

lds

|L

OW

EN

ER

GY

HO

US

EH

OL

D

figure 10.10: share of residential lighting taken up by different lighting technologies(WAIDE, 2006)

China

Russia

USA

Japan

Europe

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

•LFL

• CFL

• HALOGEN

• INCANDESCENT

figure 10.11: lighting consumption Mlmh/capita/yr as a function of GDP per capita(WAIDE, 2006)

Lig

htni

ng c

ons.

(M

-lm

-hrs

/Cap

ita/

year

)GDP per capita (2000 US$ thousands)

y=1.4125e0.0802x

R2=0.8588

0 10 20 30 40 50

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

references53 HENDEL-BLACKFORD ET AL., 200754 ENERGY STAR, ‘COMPACT FLUORESCENT LIGHT BULBS’, 200855 IEA, 2006

153

Based on the studies already cited we calculate that a maximum of 80% savings can result from the introduction of efficientresidential lighting in the Technical scenario and 70% in the[R]evolution Scenario. These savings not only include using energyefficient lamps but behavioural changes and maximising daylightuse. Since the penetration of energy efficient lamps differs perhousehold, we have assumed that the savings potential is themaximum saving multiplied by 1 minus the penetration rate. The resulting savings are given in Table 10.8.

3. Set-top boxes Set-top boxes (STBs) are used to decode satelliteor cable television programmes and are a major new source of energydemand. More than a billion are projected to be purchased worldwideover the next decade. The energy use of an average set-top box is 20-30 W, but it uses nearly the same amount of energy when switchedoff56. In the USA, STB energy use is estimated at 15 TWh/year, orabout 1.3% of residential electricity use57. With more advanced uses,for instance digital video recorders (DVRs), STB energy use isforecast to triple to 45 TWh/year by 2010 – an 18% annual growthrate and 4% of 2010 residential electricity use.

Because of their short lifetimes (on average five years) and highownership growth rates, STBs provide an opportunity for significantshort term energy savings. Cable/satellite boxes without DVRs use 100to 200 kWh of electricity per year, whilst combined with DVRs theyuse between 200 and 400 kWh per year. Media receiver boxes use lessenergy (around 35 kWh per year) but must be used in conjunctionwith existing audiovisual equipment and computers, thus addinganother 35 kWh to the annual energy use of existing home electronics.Figure 10.12 shows the annual energy use of common householdappliances. This shows that the energy use of some set-top boxesapproaches that of the major energy consuming household appliances.

Reducing the energy use of set-top boxes is complicated by theircomplex operating and communication modes. Althoughimprovements in power supply design and efficiency will be effectivein reducing energy use, the major savings will be obtained throughenergy management measures. The study by Rainer et al (2004)reports a savings potential of between 32% and 54% over five years(2005-2010). Assuming that these drastic measures have not yetbeen applied and due to lack of data on other regions, we have takenthese reduction percentages as the global potential up to 2050.

10

energ

y efficient h

ou

seho

lds

|L

OW

EN

ER

GY

HO

US

EH

OL

D

table 10.7: current penetration of energy efficient lamps

% OF ENERGY EFFICIENT LAMPS

15%

60% (average North America and Japan)

30%

5%

75%

No information, 5% assumed, as for TE

REGION

OECD Europe

OECD Pacific

OECD North America

Transition Economies (TE)

China

Developing Regions

table 10.8: energy savings from implementing energy efficient lighting

[R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

60%

49%

42%

67%

18%

67%

REGION

OECD Europe

OECD North America

OECD Pacific

Transition Economies

China

Other Developing Regions

figure 10.12: annual energy use of common household appliances(HOROWITZ, 2007)

room air conditioners

electric range top

dishwasher

efficient refrigerator

42” plasma HD television

electric oven

HD receiver with DVR

desktop computer

microwave oven

stand alone dvr (“Tivo” box)

32” analog CRT television

cable/satellite receiver

clothes washer

coffee maker

compact stereo system

laptop computer

vcr/dvd

The average HD set top boxwith built in DVR consumesover 360 kWh per year onaverage, costing over $130 to operate over its first fouryears in use.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Annual Energy use (kWh per year)

© P

XL

AR

8/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

© A

GE

NC

YB

Y/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

image COMPACT FLUORESCENT LAMPLIGHT BULB.

image WASHING MACHINE.

references56 OECD/IEA, 2006; HOROWITZ, 200757 RAINER ET AL., 2004

154

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

4. cold appliances The average household in OECD Europeconsumed 700 kWh/year of electricity for food refrigeration in 2000compared with 1,034 kWh/year in Japan, 1 216 kWh/year in OECDAustralasia and 1,294 kWh/year in OECD North America. Thesefigures illustrate differences in average household storage capacities,the ratio of frozen to fresh food use, ambient temperatures andhumidity, and food storage temperatures and control58. Europeanhouseholds typically either have a refrigerator-freezer in the kitchen(sometimes with an additional freezer or refrigerator), or they have arefrigerator and a separate freezer. Practical height and width limitsplace constraints on the available internal storage space for anappliance. Similar constraints apply in Japanese households, whereownership of a single refrigerator-freezer is the norm, but are lesspressing in OECD North America and Australia. In these countriesalmost all households have a refrigerator-freezer and many also havea separate freezer and occasionally a separate refrigerator.

Looking in detail at the situation in the European Union, we foundthat in 2003, 103 TWh of electricity was consumed by household coldappliances alone (15% of total 2004 residential end use). A coldappliance with an energy use rating of A++ uses 120 kWh per year,while a comparable appliance with energy rating B uses 300 kWh peryear and with rating C 600 kWh per year59. The average energy ratingof appliances sold in the EU-15 countries is still B. If only A++appliances were sold, energy consumption would be 60% less. Theaverage lifetime of a cold appliance is 15 years, which means that 15years from the introduction of only A++ labelled appliances, 60% lessenergy would be used in the EU-15. According to the EuropeanCommission (see Table 10.9), consumption in TWh/y could decreasefrom 103 in 2003 to 80 in 2010 with additional policies to encourageefficient appliances. This means that the energy efficiency of coldappliances could increase by about 3.5% each year.

Based on this analysis, we have assumed for the Technical scenarioan energy efficiency improvement of 3.5% per year from 2010onwards. This would lead to an efficiency improvement of 77% in2050. For the [R]evolution Scenario we have assumed a 2.5% peryear efficiency improvement, corresponding to 64% in 2050.

10

energ

y efficient h

ou

seho

lds

|L

OW

EN

ER

GY

HO

US

EH

OL

D

table 10.9: energy consumption of household appliances in the EU-15 residential sector (european commission, 2005)

APPLIANCES

Washing machines

Refrigerators and freezers

Electric ovens

Standby

Lighting

Dryers

DESWH

Air-conditioners

Dishwashers

Total

ELECTRICITY SAVINGSACHIEVED IN THE PERIOD

1992-2003 [TWH/YEAR]

10-11

12-13

-

1-2

1-5

-

-

-

0.5

24.5-31.5

CONSUMPTION IN 2003[TWH/YEAR]

26

103

17

44

85

13.8

67

5.8

16.2

377.8

CONSUMPTION IN 2010 (WITH CURRENT POLICIES)

[TWH/YEAR]

23

96

17

66

94

15

66

8.4

16.5

401.9

CONSUMPTION IN 2010AVAILABLE POTENTIAL TO

2010 (WITH ADDITIONALPOLICIES) [TWH/YEAR]

14

80

15.5

46

79

12

64

6.9

15.7

333.1

references58 IEA, 200359 EUROTOPTEN, 2008

155

5. computers and servers The average desktop computer usesabout 120 W per hour - the monitor 75 W and the centralprocessing unit 45 W - and the average laptop 30 W per hour.Current best practice monitors60 use only 18 W (15 inch screen),which is 76% less than the average. Savings for computers areespecially important in the commercial sector. According to a 2006US study, computers and monitors have the highest energyconsumption in an office after lighting. In Europe, office equipmentuse is considered to be less important (see Figure 4), but estimatesdiffer widely61. Some studies have shown that automatic and/ormanual power management of computers and monitors cansignificantly reduce their energy consumption.

A power managed computer consumes less than half the energy of acomputer without power management62, depending on how yourcomputer is used; power management can reduce the annual energyconsumption of a computer and monitor by as much as 80%63.Approximately half of all office computers are left on overnight andat weekends (75% of the time). Apart from switching off at night,using LCD (liquid crystal display) monitors requires less energy thanCRT (cathode ray tube). An average LCD screen uses 79% lessenergy than an average CRT monitor if both are power-managed64.Further savings can be made by ensuring computers enter low powermode when they are idle during the day. Another benefit ofdecreasing the power consumption of computers and monitors isthat it reduces the load for air conditioning. According to a 2002study by Roth et al, office equipment increases the air conditioningload by 0.2-0.5 kW per kW of office equipment power consumption.

The average computer with a CRT monitor in constant operation uses1,236 kWh/y (482kWh/y for the computer and 754kWh/y for themonitor). With power management this reduces to 190kWh/y(86+104). Effective power management can save 1,046kWh percomputer and CRT monitor per year, a reduction of 84%, or 505kWhper computer and LCD monitor per year. These examples illustratethat power management can have a greater effect than just moreefficient equipment. The German website EcoTopten, for example, saysthat more efficient computers save 50-70% compared with oldermodels and efficient flat-screens use 70% less energy than CRTs.

Servers are multiprocessor systems running commercial workloads65. Thetypical breakdown of peak power server use is shown in Table 10.10.

Data centres are facilities that primarily contain electronicequipment used for data processing, data storage andcommunications networking66. 80% of servers are located in thesedata centres67. Worldwide, about three million data centres and 32million servers are in operation. Approximately 25% of servers arelocated in the EU, but only 10% of data centres, meaning that onaverage each data centre hosts a relatively large number of servers(Fichter, 2007). The installed base of servers is growing rapidly dueto an increasing demand for data processing and storage. Newdigital services such as music downloads, video-on-demand, onlinebanking, electronic trading, satellite navigation and internettelephony spur this rapid growth, as well as the increasingpenetration of computers and the internet in developing countries.Since systems have become more and more complex to handleincreasingly large amounts of data, power and energy consumption(about 50% used for cooling68) have grown in parallel. The powerdensity of data centres is rising by approximately 15% each year69.Aggregate electricity use for servers doubled over the period 2000to 2005 both in the US and worldwide (see Figure 10.13). Datacentres accounted for roughly 1% of global electricity use in 2005(14 GW) (Koomey, 2007).

10

energ

y efficient h

ou

seho

lds

|L

OW

EN

ER

GY

HO

US

EH

OL

D

table 10.10: peak power breakdown by component for a typical server

PEAK POWER (WATTS)

80

36

12

50

25

10

38

251

COMPONENT

CPU

Memory

Disks

Peripheral slots

Motherboard

Fan

PSU losses

Total

source (FAN ET AL., 2007, US EPA, 2007A). PSU = POWER SUPPLY UNIT

figure 10.13: total electricity use for servers in the US and world in 2000 and 2005, including associatedcooling and auxiliary equipment(KOOMEY, 2007)

• COOLING AND AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT

• HIGH-END SERVERS

•MID-RANGE SERVERS

•VOLUME SERVERS

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

02000

U.S.

2005 2000

World

2005

Tota

l ele

ctri

city

use

(bi

llion

kW

h/ye

ar)

1.2% of 2005 U.S.electricity sales$2.7 B/year

0.8% of estimated 2005 worldelectricity sales, $7.2 B/year

© D

.SR

OG

A/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

images COMPUTERS.

© Y

. AR

CU

RS

/DR

EA

MST

IME

references60 BEST OF EUROPE, 200861 SEE BERTOLDI & ATANASIU, 2006 FOR A MORE ELABORATE ACCOUNT62 WEBBER ET AL., 200663 WEBBER ET AL., 200664 WEBBER ET AL., 200665 LEFURGY ET AL., 200366 US EPA, 2007A67 FICHTER, 200768 US EPA, 2007A69 HUMPHREYS & SCARAMELLA, 2006

156

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

Power and energy consumption are key concerns for internet datacentres and there is a significant potential for energy efficiencyimprovements. Existing technologies and design strategies havebeen shown to reduce the energy use of a typical server by 25% ormore70. Energy management efforts in existing data centres couldreduce their energy usage by around 20%, according to the USEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The US EPA scenario for reducing server energy use includesmeasures such as enabling power management, consolidatingservers and storage, using liquid instead of air cooling, improvingthe efficiency of chillers, pumps, fans and transformers and usingcombined heat and power. This bundle of measures could reduceelectricity use by up to 56% compared to current efficiency trends(or 60% compared to historical trends), the EPA concludes,representing the maximum technical potential by 2011. Thisassumes that only 50% of current data centres can introduce thesemeasures. A significant savings potential is therefore available forservers and data centres around the world by 2050. For computersand servers we have based the savings potential on the WBCSD2005 report and other sources mentioned in this section. For theTechnical scenario this would result in 70% savings, for the[R]evolution Scenario 55% savings.

6. air conditioning Today in the USA, some 14 % of total electricalconsumption is used to air condition buildings71. Increasing use ofsmall air conditioning units (less than 12 kW output cooling power) insouthern European cities, mainly during the summer months, is alsodriving up electricity consumption. Total residential electricityconsumption for air conditioners in the EU-25 in 2005 was estimatedto be between 7 and 10 TWh per year72. However, we should notunderestimate the consumption in developing countries. Many of theseare located in warm climatic zones. With the rapid development of itseconomy and improving living standards, central air conditioning unitsare now widely used in China, for example. They currently account forabout 20% of total Chinese electricity consumption73.

There are several options for technological savings in air conditioningequipment. One is to use a different refrigerant. Tests with therefrigerant Ikon B show possible energy consumption reductions of 20-25% compared to the commonly used liquids74. However, behaviouralchanges should not be overlooked. One example of a smart alternativeto cooling a whole house was developed by the company EveningBreeze. This combined a mosquito net, bed and air conditioning so thatonly the bed had to be cooled instead of the whole bedroom.

There are also other options for cooling, such as geothermal cooling byheat pumps. This uses the same principle as geothermal heating, namelythat the temperature at a certain depth below the Earth’s surfaceremains constant year round. In the winter we can use this relativelyhigh temperature to warm our houses. Conversely, we can use therelatively cold temperature in the summer to cool our houses. There areseveral technical concepts available, but all rely on transferring the heatfrom the air in the building to the Earth. A refrigerant is used as theheat transfer medium. This concept is cost-effective75. Heat pumps havebeen gaining market share in a number of countries76.

Solar energy can also be used for cooling through the use of solarthermal energy or solar electricity to power a cooling appliance. Basictypes of solar cooling technologies include absorption cooling (uses solarthermal energy to vapourise the refrigerant); desiccant cooling (usessolar thermal energy to regenerate (dry) the desiccant); vapourcompression cooling (uses solar thermal energy to operate a Rankine-cycle heat engine); evaporative cooling; and heat pumps and airconditioners that can be powered by solar photovoltaic systems. To drivethe pumps only 0.05 kWh of electricity is needed, instead of 0.35 kWhfor regular air conditioning77, representing a savings potential of 85%.

Not only is it important to use efficient air conditioning equipment,it is equally important to reduce the need for air conditioning in thefirst place. Important ways to reduce cooling demand are to useinsulation to prevent heat from entering the building, to reduce theamount of inefficient appliances present in the house, such asincandescent lamps or old refrigerators that give off unusable heat,to use cool exterior finishes, such as ‘cool roof’ technology or light-coloured wall paint, to improve windows and use vegetation toreduce the amount of heat that comes into the house, and to useventilation instead of air conditioning units.

For air conditioning we have assumed that the savings potentialbased on the 2005 WBCSD study and other sources mentioned inthis section will amount to 70% savings under the Technicalscenario and 55% savings under the [R]evolution Scenario.

10

energ

y efficient h

ou

seho

lds

|L

OW

EN

ER

GY

HO

US

EH

OL

D

references70 US EPA, 2007A71 US DOE/EIA, 200772 BERTOLDI & ATANASIU, 200673 LU, 200774 US DOE EERE, 200875 DUFFIELD & SASS, 200476 OECD/IEA, 200677 AUSTRIAN ENERGY AGENCY, 2006

157

10

energ

y efficient h

ou

seho

lds

|L

OW

EN

ER

GY

HO

US

EH

OL

D

table 10.11: savings potential for different types of energy use in the buildings sector (REVOLUTION POTENTIAL IN BRACKETS)

OECD Europe

OECD North America

OECD Pacific

Transition Economies

China

India

Rest dev. Asia

Middle East

Latin America

Africa

HEATINGNEW

72 (58)

59 (38)

38 (8)

56 (35)

43 (38)

HEATINGRETROFIT

50 (40)

41 (26)

26 (5)

39 (24)

STANDBY

82 (72)

LIGHTING

68 (60)

48 (42)

56 (49)

76 (67)

20 (18)

76 (67)

APPLIANCES

70 (50)

COLDAPPLIANCES

77 (64)

AIRCONDITIONING

70 (55)

COMPUTER/SERVER

70 (55)

OTHER

71 (57)

67 (53)

69 (55)

73 (58)

61 (48)

73 (58)

table 10.12: savings potential for different types of energy use in the buildings sector (REVOLUTION POTENTIAL IN BRACKETS). PERCENTAGES ARE TOTAL EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT PER YEAR (INCLUDING 1% AUTONOMOUS IMPROVEMENT)

OECD Europe

OECD North America

OECD Pacific

Transition Economies

China

India

Rest dev. Asia

Middle East

Latin America

Africa

HEATINGNEW

3.1 (2.1)

2.2 (1.2)

1.2 (1.1)

2.2 (1.4)

1.4 (1.2)

HEATINGRETROFIT

1.7 (1.3)

1.3 (1.1)

1.2 (1.1)

1.2 (1.1)

STANDBY

4.2 (3.1)

LIGHTING

2.8 (2.3)

2.0 (1.7)

1.6 (1.4)

3.5 (2.7)

1.2 (1.1)

3.5 (2.7)

APPLIANCES

3.0 (1.7)

COLDAPPLIANCES

3.5 (2.5)

AIRCONDITIONING

3.0 (2.0)

COMPUTER/SERVER

3.0 (2.0)

OTHER

3.1 (2.1)

2.9 (2.0)

2.8 (1.9)

3.2 (2.2)

2.8 (1.9)

3.2 (2.2)

total household savings

Total savings from the previous sections are summarised here. Table10.11 shows the total savings in percentages up to 2050. Theseneed to be translated into energy efficiency improvements per yearto compare them with the Reference Scenario. Since it is not clearwhat assumptions this is based on, we have assumed an efficiencyimprovement of 1% per year. Subtracting this from the reductionpotentials in Table 10.12 shows the energy efficiency improvementsper year measured against the Reference Scenario. Electricity usein the ‘Other’ sector is assumed to decline at the same rate asresidential electricity use (lighting, appliances, cold appliances,computers/servers and air conditioning). We have assumed aminimum energy efficiency improvement of 1.2% in the Technicalscenario and 1.1% in the [R]evolution Scenario, includingautonomous improvements.

For services and agriculture we have assumed the same percentage savings potential as for the household sector.

© J

. GO

OD

YE

AR

/DR

EA

MST

IME

© L

IAN

GF

EN

G/D

RE

AM

STIM

Eimage WASHING MACHINE.

image AIR CONDITIONING UNIT ANDINSULATED WINDOWS.

158

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

energy efficiency standards - steps towards an energy equity

the standard household

In order to enable a specific level of energy demand as a basic“right” for all people in the world, we have developed the model ofan efficient Standard Household. A fully equipped OECD household(including fridge, oven, TV, radio, music centre, computer, lights etc.)currently consumes between 1,500 and 3,400 kWh/a per person.With an average of two to four people per household the totalconsumption is therefore between 3,000 and 12,000 kWh/a. Thisdemand could be reduced to about 550 kWh/a per person just byusing the most efficient appliances available on the market today.This does not even include any significant lifestyle changes. Basedon this assumption, the ‘over-consumption’ of all households inOECD countries totals more than 2,100 billion kilowatt-hours.Comparing this figure with the current per capita consumption indeveloping countries, they would have the right to use about 1,350billion kilowatt-hours more. The ‘oversupply’ of OECD householdscould therefore fill the gap in energy supply to developing countriesone and a half times over.

By implementing a strict technical standard for allelectrical appliances, in order to achieve a level of 550kWh/a per capita consumption, it would be possibleto switch off more than 340 coal power plants in OECD countries.

10

energ

y efficient h

ou

seho

lds

|S

TA

ND

AR

D H

OU

SE

HO

LD

figure 10.14: energy equity through efficiency standards

Latin America

Africa

China

India

Developing Asia

Global per capita average

Transition Economies

Middle East

OECD Pacific

OECD Europe

North America

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Fully Equipped “Best PracticeHousehold” demand - per capita:550 kWh/a

Improving efficiency inhousehold means Equity:

Undersupply of householdsin Developing countries in2005 compared to “BestPractice Household”:1,373 TWh/a

Over consumption in OECDcountries in 2005 comparedto “Best Practice Household”:2,169 TWh/a

•LIGHTING

• STAND BY

• AIR CONDITIONING

• APPLIANCES

• COLD APPLIANCES

• COMPUTERS/SERVERS

• OTHER

figure 10.15: electricity savings in households [energy [r]evolution versus reference] in 2050

14%

13%

22%

2%

8%

20%

21%

source SVEN TESKE/WINA GRAUS

source ECOFYS

159

energy efficiency standards - the potential is huge

Setting energy efficiency standards for electrical equipment couldhave a huge impact on the world’s power sector. A large number ofpower plants could be switched off if strict technical standardswere brought into force. The table below provides an overview of thetheoretical potential for using efficiency standards based on

currently available technology. The Energy [R]evolution Scenariohas not been calculated on the basis of this theoretical potential.However, this overview illustrates how many power plants producingelectricity would not be needed if all global appliances werebrought up to the highest efficiency standards overnight.

10

energ

y efficient h

ou

seho

lds

|S

TA

ND

AR

D H

OU

SE

HO

LD

table 10.13: effect on number of global operating power plants introducing strict energy efficiency standards*BASED ON CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY

OECD Europe

OECD North America

OECD Pacific

China

Latin America

Africa

Middle East

Transition Economies

India

Rest dev. Asia

World

HOUSEHOLDS

ELECTRICITYLIGHTING

16

32

5

3

5

3

5

6

2

4

80

ELECTRICITYSTAND BY

11

19

5

3

2

2

2

3

1

2

50

ELECTRICITYAIR

CONDITIONING

11

19

5

3

3

2

3

3

1

2

52

ELECTRICITYSET TOP BOXES

2

3

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

9

ELECTRICITYOTHER

APPLIANCES

27

47

13

7

6

4

6

7

3

6

126

ELECTRICITYCOLD

APPLIANCES

15

26

7

4

3

2

3

4

2

3

69

ELECTRICITYCOMPUTERS/

SERVERS

2

4

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

11

ELECTRICITYOTHER

23

42

11

6

6

4

6

7

3

5

113

table 10.14: effect on number of global operating power plants introducing strict energy efficiency standards*BASED ON CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY

OECD Europe

OECD North America

OECD Pacific

China

Latin America

Africa

Middle East

Transition Economies

India

Rest dev. Asia

World

ELECTRICITYSERVICES

COMPUTERS

8

15

5

1

2

1

1

2

0

2

3

ELECTRICITYSERVICESLIGHTING

30

62

11

3

8

3

6

9

2

7

140

ELECTRICITYSERVICES AIRCONDITIONING

18

34

10

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

81

ELECTRICITYSERVICES

COLDAPPLIANCES

6

11

3

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

27

ELECTRICITYSERVICES

OTHERAPPLIANCES

33

60

18

5

7

2

5

7

1

6

144

ELECTRICITYAGRICULTURE

7

21

1

21

3

6

10

8

14

6

98

TOTAL NUMBEROF COAL FIRED

POWER PLANTSPHASED OUT DUE

TO STRICTEFFICIENCYSTANDARDS

209

397

69

61

52

30

51

62

31

50

1,038

INDUSTRY

106

107

52

144

39

23

8

63

23

33

613

TOTAL INCLINDUSTRY

315

503

148

205

90

53

59

125

54

83

1,651

© T

. MA

RK

OWSK

I/DR

EA

MST

IMEimage DISHWASHER AND OTHER

KITCHEN APPLIANCES.

© S

. CZ

AP

NIK

DR

EA

MST

IME

* 1 POWER PLANT = 750 MWsource WINA GRAUS/ECOFYS

* 1 POWER PLANT = 750 MWsource WINA GRAUS/ECOFYS

160

11transport

GLOBAL REFERENCE SCENARIOFUTURE OF TRANSPORT IN THEENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

“...a mix of lifestylechanges and newtechnologies.”WINA GRAUSECOFYS, THE NETHERLANDS

11

HA

LF

TH

E S

OL

UT

ION

TO

CL

IMA

TE

CH

AN

GE

IS

TH

E S

MA

RT

US

E O

F P

OW

ER

. ©

RE

D20

00/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

161

Transport is a key element in reducing the level of greenhouse gasesproduced by energy consumption. 28% of current energy use comesfrom the transport sector – road, rail and sea. In order to assessthe present status of global transport, including its carbonfootprint, a special study was undertaken by Ecofys.

This chapter gives an overview of how the Ecofys ReferenceScenario was originated and the changes expected under the Energy[R]evolution Scenario. The following chapter looks specifically at thetechnical efficiency potential for cars. The main actions proposed inthe Energy [R]evolution Scenario are: increasing the use of publictransport, especially trains, reducing the number of kilometres driveneach year by private cars, and introducing more efficient vehicles.

the reference scenario for transport

In order to calculate possible savings in the transport sector, wefirst need to construct a detailed Reference Scenario. This needs toinclude detailed shares and energy intensity data per mode oftransport and per region up to 2050. Although this data cannot befound in the IEA WEO, input is available from the WBCSD (WorldBusiness Council for Sustainable Development) mobility database.This database was completed in 2004 after collaboration betweenthe IEA and the WBCSD’s Sustainable Mobility Project to developa global transport model. Those transport options have beenselected which can be expected to result in a substantial reductionin energy demand up to 2050.

In order to estimate the energy demand per transport sub-sector, weneed the modal shares per region up to 2050. These can becalculated by using the WBCSD final energy use per mode, addingthem together and working out the share per mode in % by regionfrom 2005-2050. In the OECD, for example, light duty vehicles(LDVs) account for 57% of total energy use, heavy trucks for 15%.

Since international shipping spreads across all regions of the world,it has been left out whilst calculating the baseline figures. The totalis therefore made up of LDVs, heavy and medium duty freight, twoto three wheel vehicles, buses, minibuses, rail, air and nationalmarine transport. Although energy use from international marinebunkers (international shipping fuel suppliers) is not included inthese calculations, it is still estimated to account for 9% ofworldwide transport final energy demand in 2005 and 7% by2050. A recent UN report concluded that carbon dioxide emissionsfrom shipping are much greater than initially thought andincreasing at an alarming rate. It is therefore very important toimprove the energy efficiency of international shipping. Possibleoptions are examined later in this chapter.

The definitions of different transport modes for this scenario78 are:

• Light-duty vehicles (LDVs) are defined as four-wheel vehiclesused primarily for personal passenger road travel. These aretypically cars, SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicles), small passengervans (up to eight seats) and personal pickup trucks. Within thisreport we will sometimes call light-duty vehicles simply ‘cars’.

• Heavy duty trucks are defined here as long haul trucks operatingalmost exclusively on diesel fuel. These trucks carry large loadswith lower energy intensity (energy use per tonne-kilometre ofhaulage) than medium duty trucks such as delivery trucks.

• Medium duty trucks include medium haul trucks and delivery vehicles.

• Buses have been divided into two size classes - full size buses andminibuses - with the latter roughly encompassing the range ofsmall buses and large passenger vans prevalent around thedeveloping world and typically used for informal transit services.

• All air travel in each region (domestic and international) istreated together.

The Figures below show the breakdown of final energy demand fortransport by mode in 2005 and 2050.

As can be seen from the above figures, the largest share of energydemand comes from cars, although it slightly decreases from 48%in 2005 to 44% in 2050. The share of air transport increases from13% to 19%. Of particular note is the high share of road transportin total transport energy demand: 82% in 2005 and 74% in 2050.The Figures below show world final energy use for the transportsector by region in 2005 and 2050.

11

tran

spo

rt|

RE

FE

RE

NC

E S

CE

NA

RIO•LDV

• HEAVY TRUCKS

• AIR

•MEDIUM TRUCKS

• BUSES

• FREIGHT RAIL

•MINIBUSES

• NATIONAL MARINE

• 2 & 3 WHEELS

• PASSENGER RAIL

figure 11.1: world final energy use per transport mode2005/2050 - reference

44%

1%1%2%2%2%2%

17%

10%

19%

2050

2%4%

9%

48%

13%

17%

2%2%2%

1%

2005

references78 FULTON & EADS (2004)

© G

P/A

. SR

ISOM

WON

GW

ATH

AN

Aimage TRAFFIC JAM IN BANGKOK,THAILAND.

162

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

As we can see, OECD Europe has the highest final energy use,followed by OECD North America and OECD Pacific. Over time, theshares of these regions will decrease while the shares of all otherregions will increase. In 2050, OECD Europe will still be thelargest final energy user, but now followed by China. Figure 11.3and Figure 11.4 show the forecast worldwide growth of differentpassenger and freight transport modes. Light duty vehicles willremain the most important mode of passenger transport, air,

passenger rail and two wheeled transport are expected to growconsiderably, while three wheeled transport is expected to grow onlyslightly. Buses and minibus passenger transport is expected todecline a little. Heavy duty trucks will remain the most importantmode of freight transport. Freight rail, inland navigation andmedium duty trucks will also increase, but will remain ‘inferior’modes in the Reference Scenario.

11

tran

spo

rt|

RE

FE

RE

NC

E S

CE

NA

RIO

•OECD EUROPE

• OECD NORTH AMERICA

• OECD PACIFIC

• LATIN AMERICA

• DEVELOPING ASIA

•TRANSITION ECONOMIES

• CHINA

•MIDDLE EAST

• INDIA

• AFRICA

figure 11.2: world transport final energy use per region2005/2050 - reference

27%

13%

12%

4%5%

5%

10%

7%

6%

11%

2050

2005

6%

6%

7%

37%

9%

20%

3%4%

5%

3%

163

The growth per mode and region between 2005 and 2050 can be seenin Table 11.1. This shows very large growth percentages for almost allmodes in China and India. The highest forecast growth is predicted forLDV transport in China and India. We can also see that in all regionsair transport is expected to grow significantly up to 2050.

11

tran

spo

rt|

RE

FE

RE

NC

E S

CE

NA

RIO

table 11.1: percentage growth of passenger-km or tonne-km between 2005 and 2050 for different regions and transport mode THE HIGHEST GROWTH PERCENTAGES ARE INDICATED IN COLOUR.

OECD North America

OECD Europe

OECD Pacific

Transition Economies

China

Other Dev. Asia

India

Middle East

Latin America

Africa

World Average (stock-weighted)

LDV

41%

9%

16%

166%

1149%

608%

956%

313%

340%

418%

120%

2WHEELS

64%

7%

14%

96%

174%

136%

226%

165%

226%

447%

150%

3WHEELS

-9%

-9%

-9%

-9%

BUSES

0%

0%

0%

-5%

-5%

-5%

-5%

-5%

-5%

-5%

-3%

MINIBUSES

0%

0%

0%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

PASSRAIL

44%

66%

81%

115%

254%

183%

222%

166%

47%

172%

165%

AIR

212%

185%

184%

618%

706%

543%

778%

313%

734%

615%

318%

MEDIUMTRUCKS

119%

87%

119%

288%

550%

400%

560%

189%

267%

351%

224%

HEAVYTRUCKS

119%

87%

119%

302%

550%

400%

560%

189%

267%

351%

190%

FREIGHTRAIL

93%

66%

68%

148%

269%

132%

281%

128%

91%

188%

156%

NAT.MARINE

109%

97%

110%

217%

310%

258%

315%

204%

238%

145%

figure 11.3: time series of growth by mode for passenger transport in passenger-km per yearSCALE IS LOGARITHMIC

Pas

seng

er -

km

per

yea

r

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

1.0E+14

1.0E+13

1.0E+12

1.0E+11

figure 11.4: time series of growth by mode for freight transport in tonne-km per yearSCALE IS LOGARITHMIC

Tonn

e -

km p

er y

ear

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

•MEDIUM FREIGHT

• HEAVY FREIGHT

• FREIGHT RAIL

• NATIONAL MARINE

1.0E+14

1.0E+13

1.0E+12

1.0E+11

• LDV

• 2 WHEELS

• 3 WHEELS

• BUSES

•MINIBUSES

• PASSENGER RAIL

• AIR

© I

TALI

AN

EST

RO/

DR

EA

MST

IME

© L

. GIL

LE

S /

DR

EA

MST

IME

image ITALIAN EUROSTAR TRAIN.

image TRUCK.

164

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

the future of the transport sector in the energy[r]evolution scenario

The Reference Scenario shows that changes in patterns ofpassenger travel are partly a consequence of growing wealth. AsGDP per capita increases, people tend to migrate towards faster,more flexible and more expensive travel modes (from buses andtrains to cars and air). With faster modes, people also tend totravel further and do not reduce the amount of time spenttravelling79. There is also a strong correlation between GDP growthand increases in freight transport. More economic activity willmean more transport of raw materials, intermediary products andfinal consumer goods.

All the above figures and tables illustrate the importance of both amodal shift and a slowing of growth in forecast transport ifemissions reductions are to be achieved. Furthermore, it is veryimportant to make the remaining transport as clean as possible,signalling the role of energy efficiency improvements. Unlimitedgrowth in the transport sector is simply not an option. A shifttowards a sustainable energy system, which respects natural limitsand saves the world’s climate, requires a mix of lifestyle changesand new technologies. We basically need to use our cars less, flyless and use more public transport, as well as cutting down thetransport kilometres for freight transport whilst introducing morenew and highly efficient vehicles.

technical potentials We have looked at three options fordecreasing energy demand in the transport sector:

• Reduction of transport demand.

• Modal shift from high energy intensive transport modes to lowenergy intensity.

• Energy efficiency improvements.

step 1: reduction of transport demand A reduction in transport demand involves reducing passenger-km percapita and reducing freight transport demand. The amount of freighttransport is to a large extent linked to GDP development andtherefore difficult to influence. However, by improved logistics, forexample optimal load profiles for trucks, the demand can be limited.

passenger transport First we must look at reducing passengertransport demand. For this we need to examine the transportdemand per capita in the Reference Scenario, as shown in Table11.3. This shows that transport demand is highest in OECD NorthAmerica, followed by the OECD Pacific. Demand per capita islowest in Africa and India.

The potential for reducing passenger transport demand is very difficultto determine. For OECD countries we have assumed that transportdemand per capita can be reduced by 10% by 2050 in comparison tothe Reference Scenario. For the non-OECD countries we have assumedin the [R]evolution Scenario – as a matter of equity - no reduction intransport demand per capita because the current demand is alreadyquite low in comparison to the OECD. We have made an exception forthe Transition Economies, where we assume that transport demandper capita can be reduced by 5% in 2050.

The table below shows the profile of passenger transport demandper capita in 2005, development under the Reference Scenario by2050 and the reduced transport demand under the [R]evolutionScenario, broken down by region.

Policy measures for reducing passenger transportdemand could include:

• Price incentives that increase transport costs

• Incentives for working from home

• Stimulating the use of video conferencing in businesses

• Improved cycle paths in cities

11

tran

spo

rt|

[R]E

VO

LU

TIO

N S

CE

NA

RIO

table 11.2: selection of measures and indicators

REDUCTION OPTION

Reduction in volume of passengertransport in comparison to theReference Scenario

Reduction in volume of freighttransport in comparison toReference Scenario

Modal shift from trucks to rail

Modal shift from cars to public transport

Efficient passenger cars (hybrid fuel cars)

Efficient buses

Efficiency improvements in aircraft

Efficient freight vehicles

Efficiency improvements in ships

INDICATOR

Passengerkm/capita

Tonne-km/unit of GDP

MJ/tonne km

MJ/passenger km

MJ/vehicle km

MJ/passenger km

MJ/passenger km

MJ/tonne km

MJ/tonne km

MEASURE

Reduction oftransport demand

Modal shift

Energy efficiencyimprovements

table 11.3: passenger transport demand per capita (P-KM PER CAPITA)

[R]EVOLUTIONSCENARIO

2050

26,400

22,200

16,100

14,800

REFERENCE SCENARIO2050

27,800

23,400

17,000

15,600

2005

20,800

15,200

12,900

6,700

REGION

OECD North America

OECD Pacific

OECD Europe

Transition Economies

Latin America

China

Middle East

Rest dev. Asia

India

Africa

references79 OECD/IEA, 2007

165

freight transport In the Reference Scenario the largest absoluteincrease in freight transport demand is expected in the TransitionEconomies, whilst the largest percentage increase is forecast in China(383%). The potential for reducing demand for freight transport byimproved logistics is difficult to estimate. For the [R]evolutionScenario we have assumed that freight transport demand can bereduced by 5% in comparison to the Reference Scenario, althoughonly through measures in the OECD and Transition Economies.

step 2: changes in transport mode In order to decide which vehicles or transport systems are the mosteffective for each purpose, an analysis of the different technologiesis needed. To calculate the energy savings achieved by shiftingtransport mode we need to know the energy use and intensity foreach type of transport80. The following information is needed:

• Passenger transport: Energy demand per passenger kilometre,measured in MJ/p-km.

• Freight transport: Energy demand per kilometre of transportedtonne of goods, measured in MJ/ tonne-km.

development of passenger transport Passenger transport includescars, minibuses, two and three wheelers, buses, passenger rail and airtransport. Freight transport includes medium trucks, heavy trucks,national marine and freight rail. The figures below show a breakdownof passenger transport by mode in the Reference Scenario for 2005and 2050 (as % of total passenger-km). The global demand for airtransport is expected to grow from 12% in 2005 to 23% in 2050.

11

tran

spo

rt|

[R]E

VO

LU

TIO

N S

CE

NA

RIO

figure 11.5: demand for freight transport in the reference scenario (IN TONNE-KM PER CAPITA)

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

OE

CD

Nor

th A

mer

ica

OE

CD

Pac

ific

Tran

isit

ion

Eco

nom

ies

OE

CD

Eur

ope

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Chi

na

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Dev

elop

ing

Asi

a

Indi

a

Afr

ica

Frei

ght

dem

and

(t.k

m /

capi

ta)

figure 11.6: breakdown of passenger transport by mode in 2005(IN % SHARE OF PASSENGER KM)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0

OE

CD

Nor

th A

mer

ica

OE

CD

Eur

ope

OE

CD

Pac

ific

Tran

siti

on E

cono

mie

s

Chi

na

Dev

elop

ing

Asi

a

Indi

a

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Afr

ica

Wor

ld A

vera

ge (

stoc

k-w

eigh

ted)

•2005

• 2050

figure 11.7: breakdown of passenger transport by mode in 2050 (IN % SHARE OF PASSENGER KM)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0

OE

CD

Nor

th A

mer

ica

OE

CD

Eur

ope

OE

CD

Pac

ific

Tran

siti

on E

cono

mie

s

Chi

na

Dev

elop

ing

Asi

a

Indi

a

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Afr

ica

Wor

ld A

vera

ge (

stoc

k-w

eigh

ted)

•AIR

• PASSENGER RAIL

•MINIBUSES

• BUSES

• 3 WHEELS

• 2 WHEELS

• CARS

© A

.YA

RM

OLE

NK

O/D

RE

AM

STIM

Eimage BELGIAN COASTAL TRAMWAY.

image HIGHWAY IN ISRAEL.

© P

ICC

AY

A/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

references80 WBCSD PROVIDES ESTIMATES FOR ENERGY INTENSITIES PER MODE

166

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

travelling by rail is the most efficient Figure 11.8 shows theworldwide average specific energy consumption by transport modeunder the Reference Scenario in 2005 and 2050. This data differsfor each region. As can be seen, the difference in specific energyconsumption for each transport mode is large. Passenger transportby rail will consume 85% less energy in 2050 than car transportand by bus nearly 70% less energy. This means that there is a largeenergy savings potential to be realised by a modal shift.

modal shift for passengers in the energy [r]evolution scenarioFrom the figures above we can conclude that in order to reducetransport energy demand by modal shift, passengers have to move fromcars and air transport to the lower intensity passenger rail and bustransport. As an indication of the action required we can take Japan asa ‘best practice country’. In 2004, Japan had a large share of p-km byrail (29%) thanks to the fact that it had established a strong urban andregional rail system81. Comparing different regions with the example ofJapan, and assuming that 40 years is enough time to build up anextensive rail network, the following modal shifts have been assumed:

This means that in the Energy [R]evolution Scenario 2.5% of cartransport shifts to rail and 2.5% to bus. In total this means a reductionin car transport of 7.5% in comparison to the Reference Scenario.

11

tran

spo

rt|

[R]E

VO

LU

TIO

N S

CE

NA

RIO

table 11.4: passenger modal shifts assumed in [r]evolution scenario

[R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

2.5%

2.5%

2.5%

TRANSPORT

From air to rail (short distances)

From car to rail

From car to bus

figure 11.8: world average (stock-weighted) passengertransport energy intensity for 2005 and 2050.

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Car

s

Air

3-w

heel

s

Bus

es

2-w

heel

s

Min

i-bu

ses

Pas

seng

er r

ail

MJ

/ p.k

m

•2005

• 2050

references81 OECD/IEA, 2007

167

© M

AR

INOM

AR

INI/D

RE

AM

STIM

Eimage TRAIN SIGNALS.

transporting goods by rail is the most efficient Figure 11.12shows the energy intensity for world average freight transport in2005 and 2050 under the Reference Scenario. Energy intensity forall modes of transport is expected to decrease by 2050.

modal shift for transporting goods in the energy [r]evolutionscenario From the figures above we can conclude that in order toreduce transport energy demand by modal shift, freight has to movefrom medium and heavy duty trucks to the less energy intensivefreight rail and national marine. Canada is a ‘best practice’ countryin this respect, with 29% of freight transported by trucks, 39% byrail and 32% by ships. Since the use of ships largely depends onthe geography of the country, we do not propose a modal shift fornational ships but instead a shift towards freight rail. China, OECDPacific and the Transition Economies already have a low share oftruck usage, so for these regions we will not assume a modal shift.For the other regions we have assumed the following changes:

freight transport Figures 11.9 and 11.10 show the breakdown offreight transport in percentages of total tonnes-km per year and byregion under the Reference Scenario. Both the Transition Economiesand China have a very large proportion of rail transport while theDeveloping Asia and the Middle East have a very small share. Theshare of heavy and medium trucks is very large in the Developing Asiacountries and OECD Europe. National marine transport plays animportant role in the OECD Pacific. The figures also show that thedifference between 2005 and 2050 is relatively small.

11

tran

spo

rt|

[R]E

VO

LU

TIO

N S

CE

NA

RIO

table 11.5: freight modal shift in the [r]evolutionscenario for all regions EXCEPT CHINA, THE TRANSITION ECONOMIES AND OECD PACIFIC

[R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

+ 5%

+ 2.5%

TRANSPORT

From medium trucks to rail

From heavy trucks to rail

figure 11.9: breakdown of freight transport by mode in 2005 (IN % SHARE OF TONNE KM)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0

OE

CD

Nor

th A

mer

ica

OE

CD

Eur

ope

OE

CD

Pac

ific

Tran

siti

on E

cono

mie

s

Chi

na

Dev

elop

ing

Asi

a

Indi

a

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Afr

ica

Wor

ld A

vera

ge (

stoc

k-w

eigh

ted)

•NATIONAL MARINE

• FREIGHT RAIL

• HEAVY TRUCKS

•MEDIUM TRUCKS

figure 11.10: breakdown of freight transport by mode in 2050 (IN % SHARE OF TONNE KM)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0

OE

CD

Nor

th A

mer

ica

OE

CD

Eur

ope

OE

CD

Pac

ific

Tran

siti

on E

cono

mie

s

Chi

na

Dev

elop

ing

Asi

a

Indi

a

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Afr

ica

Wor

ld A

vera

ge (

stoc

k-w

eigh

ted)

figure 11.12: world average (stock-weighted) freighttransport energy intensity in 2005 and 2050

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

Med

ium

tru

cks

Hea

vy t

ruck

s

Nat

iona

l mar

ine

Frei

ght

rail

MJ

/ t.k

m•2005

• 2050

168

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

marine transport Since the WBCSD did not provide estimates fortotal national marine tonnes-km per year or energy intensities perregion, we have calculated these ourselves. Data for energy intensityfor the year 2005 in OECD countries was found in OECD/IEA, 2007.For other regions we have assumed that the highest OECD estimatewould hold. The 2050 intensities were extrapolated from 2005 datausing 1% per year autonomous efficiency improvement. The amountof t-km per year could then be calculated using the ReferenceScenario energy use divided by the energy intensity in MJ/t-km.

step 3: efficiency improvements or travelling with less energyEnergy efficiency improvements are the third important way ofreducing transport energy demand. This section explains thedifferent possibilities for improving energy efficiency82 up to 2050for each type of transport:

• Air transport

• Passenger and freight trains

• Buses and mini-buses

• Trucks

• Ships for marine transport

• Motorcycles

• Cars

air transport Savings for air transport have been taken fromAkerman, 2005. He reports that a 65% reduction in fuel use istechnically feasible by 2050. This has been applied to 2005 energyintensity data in order to calculate the technical potential. Thefigure below shows the energy intensity per region in the ReferenceScenario and in the two low energy demand scenarios.

All regions have the same energy intensities in 2005 due to lack ofregionally-differentiated data. Numbers shown are a global average.The projection of future energy intensity is based on IEA data over the1990-2000 period, when intensity improved at about 0.7% per year.

11

tran

spo

rt|

[R]E

VO

LU

TIO

N S

CE

NA

RIO

© S

KY

SA

ILS

figure 11.13: energy intensities (MJ/p-km) for airtransport in the reference and [r]evolution scenarios

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

OE

CD

Eur

ope

OE

CD

Nor

th A

mer

ica

OE

CD

Pac

ific

Tran

siti

on E

cono

mie

s

Chi

na

Indi

a

Dev

elop

ing

Asi

a

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Afr

ica

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Wor

ld A

vera

ge (

stoc

k-w

eigh

ted)

•2005

• REFERENCE 2050

• [R]EVOLUTION 2050

•TECHNICAL 2050

Air

ene

rgy

inte

nsit

y M

J/p-

km

Introduced to commercial operation in 2007, the SkySails system allowswind power, which has no fuel costs, to contribute to the motive power oflarge freight-carrying ships, which currently use increasingly expensiveand environmentally damaging oil. Instead of a traditional sail fitted to amast, the system uses large towing kites to contribute to the ship’spropulsion. Shaped like paragliders, they are tethered to the vessel byropes and can be controlled automatically, responding to wind conditionsand the ship’s trajectory.

The kites can operate at altitudes of between 100 and 300 metres,where stronger and more stable winds prevail. By means of dynamicflight patterns, the SkySails are able to generate five times morepower per square metre of sail area than conventional sails. Dependingon the prevailing winds, the company claims that a ship’s averageannual fuel costs can be reduced by 10 to 35%. Under optimal windconditions, fuel consumption can temporarily be cut by up to 50%.

On the first voyage of the Beluga SkySails, a 133m long speciallybuilt cargo ship, the towing kite propulsion system was able totemporarily substitute for approximately 20 % of the vessel’s mainengine power, even in moderate winds. The company is now planninga kite twice the size of this 160m2 pilot.

The designers say that virtually all sea-going cargo vessels can beretro- or outfitted with the SkySails propulsion system withoutextensive modifications. If 1,600 ships would be equiped with thesesails by 2015 ,it would save over 146 million tonnes of CO2 a year,equivalent to about 15% of Germany’s total emissions.

case 11.1: wind powered ships

references82 FOR THE [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO WE BASE THE POTENTIAL ON IMPLEMENTING80% OF THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.

169

passenger and freight trains Savings for passenger and freightrail transport have been taken from Fulton & Eads (2004). Theyreport a historic improvement in the fuel economy of passenger railof 1% per year and for freight rail of between 2 and 3% per year.Since no other studies are available we have assumed for theTechnical scenario a 1% improvement of in energy efficiency peryear for passenger rail and 2.5% for freight rail. The figure belowshows the energy intensity per region in the Reference Scenario andin the two low energy demand scenarios.

freight rail Savings for freight rail are taken from the same studyas for passenger rail. They report a historic improvement in the fueleconomy of freight rail of between 2 and 3% per year. Since noother studies are available we have assumed for the Technicalscenario a 2.5% improvement in energy efficiency per year. Thefigure below shows the energy intensity per region in the ReferenceScenario and in the two low energy demand scenarios.

Energy intensities for passenger rail transport are assumed to be thesame for all regions due to a lack of sufficiently detailed data. Thedifferentiation in energy intensity for freight rail is based on thefollowing assumption: regions with longer average distances for freightrail (such as the US and Former Soviet Union), and where more rawmaterials are transported (such as coal), show a lower energy intensitythan other regions (Fulton & Eads, 2004). Future projections use tenyear historic IEA data. Rail intensities are and will remain highest inOECD Europe and OECD Pacific and lowest in India.

11

tran

spo

rt|

[R]E

VO

LU

TIO

N S

CE

NA

RIO

figure 11.14: energy intensities for passenger railtransport in the reference and [r]evolution scenarios

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.0

OE

CD

Eur

ope

OE

CD

Nor

th A

mer

ica

OE

CD

Pac

ific

Tran

siti

on E

cono

mie

s

Chi

na

Indi

a

Dev

elop

ing

Asi

a

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Afr

ica

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Wor

ld A

vera

ge (

stoc

k-w

eigh

ted)

•2005

• REFERENCE 2050

• [R]EVOLUTION 2050

•TECHNICAL 2050

Pas

seng

er r

ail e

nerg

y in

tens

ity

MJ/

p-km

figure 11.15: reference scenario and 2050 technicalpotential energy intensities for different regions for freight rail transport

0.45

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.0

OE

CD

Eur

ope

OE

CD

Nor

th A

mer

ica

OE

CD

Pac

ific

Tran

siti

on E

cono

mie

s

Chi

na

Indi

a

Dev

elop

ing

Asi

a

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Afr

ica

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Wor

ld A

vera

ge (

stoc

k-w

eigh

ted)

•2005

• REFERENCE 2050

• [R]EVOLUTION 2050

•TECHNICAL 2050

Frei

ght

rail

ener

gy in

tens

ity

MJ/

p-km

© G

RA

FIK

ER

AY/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

© V

. DU

DE

NK

O/D

RE

AM

STIM

Eimage CONTAINER SHIP.

image FREIGHT TRAINS.

170

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

buses and minibuses The company Enova Systems is promoting a‘clean bus’ with a 100% improvement in fuel economy. We haveadopted this improvement and applied it to 2005 energy intensitynumbers per region. For minibuses the American Council for anEnergy Efficient Economy reports83 a fuel economy improvement of55% by 2015. Since this is a very ambitious target and will mostlikely not be reached, we have extended it up to 2050 and adopted itas the technical potential (see Figure 11.16 and Figure 11.17).Currently, buses in North America consume far and away the mostenergy. The Reference Scenario predicts an increase in all regionsbetween 2005 and 2050. Although in general more efficient buses arebeing produced, this is offset by increases in average bus size, weightand power. OECD buses have much more powerful engines than non-OECD buses, but the latter are likely to catch up over this period.

11

tran

spo

rt|

[R]E

VO

LU

TIO

N S

CE

NA

RIO

trucks (freight by road) Elliott et al., 2006 give possible savingsfor heavy and medium-duty freight trucks. This list of reductionoptions is expanded in Lensink and De Wilde, 2007. For mediumduty trucks a fuel economy saving of 50% is reported by 2030(mainly due to hybridisation). We applied this percentage to 2005energy intensity data, calculated the fuel economy improvement peryear and extrapolated this yearly growth rate up to 2050. For heavyduty trucks we applied the same methodology, arriving at a 39%savings. Current intensities are highest in the Middle East, India andAfrica and lowest in OECD North America. The Reference Scenariopredicts that future values will converge, assuming past improvementpercentages and assuming a higher learning rate in developingregions. The figures below show the energy intensity per region in theReference Scenario and in the two low energy demand scenarios.

figure 11.16: energy intensities for buses in thereference and [r]evolution scenarios

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

OE

CD

Eur

ope

OE

CD

Nor

th A

mer

ica

OE

CD

Pac

ific

Tran

siti

on E

cono

mie

s

Chi

na

Indi

a

Dev

elop

ing

Asi

a

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Afr

ica

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Wor

ld A

vera

ge (

stoc

k-w

eigh

ted)

Bus

es e

nerg

y in

tens

ity

MJ/

p-km

figure 11.18: reference scenario and 2050 technicalpotential energy intensities for different regions for medium duty freight transport

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

OE

CD

Eur

ope

OE

CD

Nor

th A

mer

ica

OE

CD

Pac

ific

Tran

siti

on E

cono

mie

s

Chi

na

Indi

a

Dev

elop

ing

Asi

a

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Afr

ica

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Wor

ld A

vera

ge (

stoc

k-w

eigh

ted)

Med

ium

fre

ight

ene

rgy

inte

nsit

y M

J/t-

km

figure 11.19: reference scenario and 2050 technicalpotential energy intensities for different regions for heavy duty freight transport

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

OE

CD

Eur

ope

OE

CD

Nor

th A

mer

ica

OE

CD

Pac

ific

Tran

siti

on E

cono

mie

s

Chi

na

Indi

a

Dev

elop

ing

Asi

a

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Afr

ica

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Wor

ld A

vera

ge (

stoc

k-w

eigh

ted)

Hea

vy f

reig

ht e

nerg

y in

tens

ity

MJ/

t-km

figure 11.17: energy intensities for minibuses in the reference and [r]evolution scenarios

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

OE

CD

Eur

ope

OE

CD

Nor

th A

mer

ica

OE

CD

Pac

ific

Tran

siti

on E

cono

mie

s

Chi

na

Indi

a

Dev

elop

ing

Asi

a

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Afr

ica

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Wor

ld A

vera

ge (

stoc

k-w

eigh

ted)

Min

ibus

es e

nerg

y in

tens

ity

MJ/

p-km

references83 DECICCO ET AL., 2001.

171

marine transport National marine savings have also been takenfrom the Lensink and De Wilde study. They report 20% savings in2030 for inland navigation as a realistic potential with currentlyavailable technology, and ultimate efficiency savings of up to 30%for the current fleet. To arrive at the potential in 2050, we used thesame approach as described for road freight above. OECD Pacifichas the lowest current energy intensity due to the fact that theyhave a large proportion of long haul trips where larger (less energyintensive) boats can be used. All energy intensities are expected toimprove by 1% per year up to 2050. Reference Scenario energyintensities and the technical potentials for national marinetransport are shown in Figure 11.20.

© S

UL

JO/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

image FREIGHT TRUCK.

11

tran

spo

rt|

[R]E

VO

LU

TIO

N S

CE

NA

RIO

motorcycles For two wheelers we have based the potential onIEA/SMP (2004), where 0.3 MJ/p.km is the lowest value. Forthree wheelers we have assumed that the technical potential is 0.5MJ/p.km in 2050. The uncertainty in these potentials is high,although two and three wheelers only account for 1.5% oftransport energy demand.

The figures below show the energy intensity per region in theReference Scenario and in the two low energy demand scenarios.

171

figure 11.21: energy intensities for two wheelers in the reference and [r]evolution scenarios

16

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

OE

CD

Eur

ope

OE

CD

Nor

th A

mer

ica

OE

CD

Pac

ific

Tran

siti

on E

cono

mie

s

Chi

na

Indi

a

Dev

elop

ing

Asi

a

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Afr

ica

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Wor

ld A

vera

ge (

stoc

k-w

eigh

ted)

2-w

heel

ene

rgy

inte

nsit

y M

J/p-

km

figure 11.20: reference scenario and 2050 technicalpotential energy intensities for different regions for national marine transport

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

OE

CD

Eur

ope

OE

CD

Nor

th A

mer

ica

OE

CD

Pac

ific

Tran

siti

on E

cono

mie

s

Chi

na

Indi

a

Dev

elop

ing

Asi

a

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Afr

ica

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Wor

ld A

vera

ge (

stoc

k-w

eigh

ted)

•2005

• REFERENCE 2050

• [R]EVOLUTION 2050

•TECHNICAL 2050

Nat

iona

l mar

ine

ener

gy in

tens

ity

MJ/

t-km

figure 11.22: energy intensities for three wheelers in the reference and [r]evolution scenarios

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

OE

CD

Eur

ope

OE

CD

Nor

th A

mer

ica

OE

CD

Pac

ific

Tran

siti

on E

cono

mie

s

Chi

na

Indi

a

Dev

elop

ing

Asi

a

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Afr

ica

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Wor

ld A

vera

ge (

stoc

k-w

eigh

ted)

3-w

heel

ene

rgy

inte

nsit

y M

J/p-

km

172

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

passenger cars This section is based on a special study conductedby the DLR’s Institute for Vehicle Concepts to investigate thepotential for improving the efficiency of existing cars and movingtowards greater use of hybrid or electric vehicles. See Chapter 12for a full account of this analysis.

Many technologies can be used to improve the fuel efficiency ofpassenger cars. Examples include improvements in engines, weightreduction and friction and drag reduction84. The impact of the variousmeasures on fuel efficiency can be substantial. Hybrid vehicles,combining a conventional combustion engine with an electric engine,have relatively low fuel consumption. The most well-known is theToyota Prius, which originally had a fuel efficiency of about five litresof gasoline-equivalent per 100 km (litre ge/100 km). Recently, Toyotapresented an improved version with a lower fuel consumption of 4.3litres ge/100 km. Further developments are underway, as shown bythe presentation of new concept cars by the main US carmanufacturers in 2000 with a specific fuel use as low as three litresge/100 km. There are suggestions that applying new lightweightmaterials, in combination with the new propulsion technologies, canbring fuel consumption levels down to 1 litre ge/100 km.

Based on SRU (2005), the technical potential in 2050 for a dieselfuelled car is 1.6 and for a petrol car 2.0 litres ge/100 km. Based onthe sources in Table 11.6, we have assumed 2.0 litres as the technicalpotential for Europe and adopted the same improvement in efficiency(about 3% per year) for other regions. In order to reach this targetin time, these more efficient cars need to be on the market by 2030 –assuming that the maximum lifetime of a car is 20 years.

the energy [r]evolution scenario for passenger cars The figurebelow gives the energy intensity for cars in the Reference Scenarioand in the two alternative scenarios.

11

tran

spo

rt|

[R]E

VO

LU

TIO

N S

CE

NA

RIO

table 11.6: efficiency of cars and new developments (BLOK, 2004)

FUEL CONSUMPTION (LITRES GE/100 KM)

10.4

~5 (1997)4.3 (2003)

2 – 3

0.8 - 1.6

SOURCE

IEA/SMP (2004)

EPA (2003)

USCAR (2002) Weiss et al (2000)

Von Weizsäcker et al (1998)

BEST PRACTICECURRENT & FUTUREEFFICIENCIES

Present average

Hybrids on the market(medium-sized cars)

Improved hybrids or fuelcell cars (average car)

Ultralights

figure 11.23: energy intensities (litres ge/v-km) for carsin the reference and [r]evolution scenarios

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

OE

CD

Eur

ope

OE

CD

Nor

th A

mer

ica

OE

CD

Pac

ific

Tran

siti

on E

cono

mie

s

Chi

na

Indi

a

Dev

elop

ing

Asi

a

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Afr

ica

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Wor

ld A

vera

ge (

stoc

k-w

eigh

ted)

•2005

• REFERENCE 2050

• [R]EVOLUTION 2050

•TECHNICAL 2050

LD

V f

reig

ht e

nerg

y in

tens

ity

MJ/

t-km

references84 DECICCO ET AL., 2001.

173

The table below gives a summary of the energy efficiency improvementfor freight transport in the two low energy demand scenarios.

summary of energy savings in the transport sectorin the energy [r]evolution scenario

The table below gives a summary of the energy efficiency improvementfor passenger transport in the two low energy demand scenarios.

The energy intensities for car passenger transport are currentlyhighest in OECD North America and Africa and lowest in OECDEurope. The Reference Scenario shows a decrease in energyintensities in all regions, but the division between highest and lowestwill remain the same, although there will be some convergence. Wehave assumed that the occupancy rate for cars remains the same asin 2005, as shown in the figure below.

11

tran

spo

rt|

[R]E

VO

LU

TIO

N S

CE

NA

RIO

table 11.7: technical efficiency potential for worldpassenger transport

[R]EVOLUTIONSCENARIO

2050

3.9

0.9

1.2

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.5

0.2

REFERENCE SCENARIO2050

8.5

2.0

1.9

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.3

2005

10.4

2.2

2.6

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.7

0.3

MJ/P-KM

Cars (L/100 v-km)

Cars (MJ/p-km)

Air

Buses

Mini-buses

Two wheels

Three wheels

Passenger rail

table 11.8: technical efficiency potential for world freight transport

[R]EVOLUTIONSCENARIO

2050

2.3

0.7

0.1

0.5

REFERENCE SCENARIO2050

3.9

1.3

0.2

0.5

2005

5.4

1.7

0.2

0.7

MJ/P-KM

Medium trucks

Heavy trucks

Freight rail

National marine

figure 11.24: car occupancy rate in 2005

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

OE

CD

Eur

ope

OE

CD

Nor

th A

mer

ica

OE

CD

Pac

ific

Tran

siti

on E

cono

mie

s

Chi

na

Indi

a

Dev

elop

ing

Asi

a

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Afr

ica

Mid

dle

Eas

t

Wor

ld A

vera

ge (

stoc

k-w

eigh

ted)

© P

N_P

HOT

O/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

image AIRPLANE FLYING OVERHIGHWAY.

image TRANSPORTING CARGO AND OIL.

© M

. LA

PT

EV

/DR

EA

MST

IME

174

12cars of the future

GLOBAL METHODOLOGYENERGY [R]EVOLUTION CAR SCENARIO

“if we’re serious aboutfacing up to climatechange, we need toimprove ALL our cars.”GREENPEACE INTERNATIONALCLIMATE CAMPAIGN

12

MO

VIN

G T

OW

AR

DS

ALT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

NO

LO

NG

ER

BA

SE

D O

N F

OS

SIL

FU

EL

S.

© O

. MIE

RN

Y/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

175

Since the global use of privately owned cars (light duty vehicles)currently accounts for more carbon dioxide emissions than any otherform of transport, the DLR’s Institute for Vehicle Concepts wascommissioned to look specifically at the potential for reductions inthis sector. At the same time, the door has already been opened forboth major technological changes and shifts in personal habits.Rising oil prices, increasing concern about climate change and, insome regions, legislation on everything from bio fuels to vehicleemissions, have together combined to put pressure on internationalvehicle manufacturers to investigate solutions. Numerous technicalfixes are already in production which can improve the efficiency ofthe predominant internal combustion engine, as well as movingtowards alternatives no longer based on fossil fuels.

This specific study of the light duty vehicle market concludes that anumber of measures could help reduce the CO2 emissions from carsvery significantly to a target level of about 80 g CO2 per km for theEuropean Union. These measures include a major shift to vehiclespowered by (renewable) electricity, a range of efficiencyimprovements to the power trains of existing internal combustionengines and behavioural changes leading to an overall reduction inkilometres travelled.

methodology

The DLR developed a global scenario for cars based on a detailedbottom-up model covering ten world regions. The aim was toproduce a challenging but feasible scenario which would lowerglobal CO2 emissions within the context of the overall emissionreduction objective. Cars contribute about 45% of the greenhousegas emissions from the entire transport sector, the largestproportion of any mode.

This approach takes into account a vast range of technicalmeasures to reduce the energy consumption of vehicles, but alsoconsiders the dramatic increase in vehicle ownership and annualmileage taking place in developing countries. The turnover ofreplacement vehicles has been modelled over five year stages from2005 to 2050. The scenario assumes that a large share ofrenewable electricity is available in the future. The majorparameters for achieving increased efficiency are:

• vehicle technology

• alternative fuels

• changes in sales by vehicle size

• changes in vehicle kilometres travelled

This section will examine the development of the world’s car fleet inmore detail and is focused on non-technical as well as technicalsolutions. Light duty vehicles and their technologies are divided intothree vehicle segments (small, medium and large) and ninecategories of fuel/propulsion technology:

• conventional petrol

• petrol hybrid

• conventional diesel

• diesel hybrid

• LPG/CNG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas/Compressed Natural Gas)

• LPG/CNG hybrid

• fuel cell hydrogen

• battery electric

• plug in-hybrid electric vehicles

As a Reference Scenario for the starting point in 2005, the analysis inthe IEA/SMP model85 has been used. This is the most comprehensive anddetailed model available for CO2 emissions from the global transportsector. For those technologies not included in the SMP model, we had todecide starting points for today’s performance values (see below). Wethen created so-called ‘target reference vehicles’ (TRVs), which projectthe energy consumption feasible for each of the main fuel conversiontechnologies. This is described in the section ‘Future vehicle technologies’.The TRVs will be introduced in the different regions of the world over avarying timescale. In general, the technologies to achieve the TRVs areaimed to be available for sale in 2050 - 42 years from now.

In general, we have first introduced the most recent - and mostexpensive - technologies in the currently industrialised countries, andpostponed their introduction in the rest of the world. We have then usedthe option to change the energy source used to fuel light duty transport.This is described in the section ‘Projection of future technology mix’.Various non-technical measures are reflected in the projections forfuture vehicle sales (see ‘Projection of vehicle segment split’), in theprojection for the absolute number of vehicles sold in the future (see‘Projection of global vehicle stock development’) and in the projectionof how much individual vehicles are used compared to other transportmeans in the future (see ‘Projection of kilometres driven’).

reference scenario

The IEA Reference Scenario developed for the Mobility 2030 project86

was used as the starting point for the year 2005 key data and forcomparison as a ‘business as usual’ scenario. It is important to note thatfor this scenario no major new policies were assumed to be implementedbeyond those already introduced by 2003. While for some areas, such aspollution control, further so called policy trajectories have beenassumed, this was not the case for fuel consumption. Trends in futurefuel consumption are therefore based on historical (non-policy driven)trends87. If the serious discussions taking place in Europe and the UnitedStates on the regulation of fuel economy in new vehicles, together withlegal guidelines and proposed long term targets, were taken intoaccount, the business as usual case would be different. However, it isbeyond the scope of this project to redefine the status quo. Nevertheless,we include the most recent political targets in our scenario.

12

cars o

f the fu

ture

|M

ET

HO

DO

LO

GY

references85 FULTON, L. (2004): THE IEA/SMP TRANSPORTATION MODEL; FULTON, L. AND G. EADS(2004): IEA/SMP MODEL DOCUMENTATION AND REFERENCE CASE PROJECTION.86 WBCSD (2004): MOBILITY 2030: MEETING THE CHALLENGES TO SUSTAINABILITY,WORLD BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.87 FULTON, L. AND G. EADS (2004): IEA/SMP MODEL DOCUMENTATION AND REFERENCECASE PROJECTION

© G

P

image DESIGNS FOR A CLEVER ENGINE.

energy [r]evolution car scenario

The alternative car scenario is targeted towards high CO2

reductions compared to today’s levels. Summarised in brief, wehave focused on the following proposals:

• Efficiency improvements resulting from technological development

• Renewable electricity as the primary alternative fuel

• Influencing customer behaviour in the long term

There is a huge potential for technological options to make today’svehicles more efficient while lowering their CO2 emissions. A cartoday converts the energy in the fuel into mechanical energy inorder to take the compartment we sit in from point A to B, but itdoes it in a very inefficient way. Only 25% to 35% of the chemicalenergy in the fuel is converted into mechanical energy by theengine. The rest is lost as waste heat. Only 10% of the fuel energyis used to overcome driving resistance. Hybrid technologies mark animportant starting point for making vehicles more efficient, whilsttechnologies to lower energy demand, such as lightweight design,reduced rolling resistance wheels and improved aerodynamics, willcontribute to the achievement of very low fuel consumptions.

Renewable electricity can be produced almost everywhere in theworld, and with declining costs in the future. Taking into accountthe enormous development in batteries in recent years, we believethat electric mobility as offered by battery electric cars and plug-inhybrid electric vehicles is the preferred way to make majorreductions in the CO2 emissions of cars.

Consumer behaviour is the third major key to a lower carbon worldfor the transport sector. Here we have relied on programmes,incentives and policy measures to support a shift towards lowcarbon emitting vehicles as well as reducing demand in general.

176

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

Current starting point values for the world’s regions and vehicletypes are presented in Figure 12.2.

12

cars o

f the fu

ture

|M

ET

HO

DO

LO

GY

figure 12.1: well-to-wheel CO2 emissions from the lightduty fleet as projected in the reference scenario

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

Mt 02000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

•MIDDLE EAST

• AFRICA

• LATIN AMERICA

• DEVELOPING ASIA

• INDIA

• CHINA

•TRANSITION ECONOMIES

• OECD PACIFIC

• OECD NORTH AMERICA

• OECD EUROPE

figure 12.2: reference values for CO2 emissions for 2005 sales averages per vehicle segment, gasoline and diesel, and world region

300

250

200

150

100

50

0OECD

EuropeOECD North

AmericaOECD Pacific Transition

EconomiesChina India Developing

AsiaLatin

AmericaAfrica Middle East

•GASOLINE SMALL

• DIESEL SMALL• GASOLINE LARGE

• DIESEL LARGE• GASOLINE MEDIUM

• DIESEL MEDIUM

CO

2in

g/k

m

177

future vehicle technologies

The global vehicle market, with about 55 million vehicles sold peryear, is enormous. Around 500 automobile plants produce this hugequantity. Regional markets differ in the size of vehicles and fuel typeused. Depending on income, infrastructure and the spatialcharacteristics of the countries, people have different preferences forthe size of vehicles they use.

The propulsion technology used in all new cars globally does notdiffer very much, however. For the sake of simplicity, therefore, wehave defined the reference target vehicles, which we use throughoutthe world, as characterised by their energy consumption ‘tank-to-wheel’, independent of the fuel used. The energy consumption for thereference target vehicles are presented in Figure 12.3.

Differences in energy consumption ‘tank-to-wheel’ shown in Figure 12.3reflect the different efficiencies with which vehicles convert fuel energyinto movement. The various fuels and energy sources have differentqualities, depending on their upstream production processes. This istaken into account in the model. In the light of high energy prices andthus growing costs for individual mobility, we foresee a market fordedicated small commuter vehicles. These cars would servepredominantly for the transport of a single person, reflecting today’scar usage in industrialised countries. Although there will still be seatsfor three to five people, the comfort for the car passengers will be less.Therefore the ‘small’ passenger vehicle of the future is projected to besmaller than it is today and therefore less energy intensive88.

Due to the differences in income level between the world’s regions,which we have assumed to be still valid in 2050, the referencetarget vehicles are applied to new vehicle sales in the year 2050 fortoday’s most industrialised regions: OECD Europe, North Americaand OECD Pacific. For all other regions, they are envisaged to enterthe market in 2060, ten years later, and 20 years later in Africa.

gasoline and diesel cars

For traditional internal combustion engines, we have only allowedhere for improvements in starting and stopping and no other hybridfeatures. Other vehicle adaptations to be introduced up to 2050 aredescribed in more detail below.

For the small car sector we project a 1.8 litre/100 km (NEDC) four-seater diesel vehicle, as described in simulations by Friedrich89. Wefound corresponding results from our own simulations for a low-energyconcept car with space for three adults and two children. For gasoline,we project 2.4 l/100 km. For the medium size sector, we project thepotential for a 50% reduction in CO2 for gasoline cars and 42% fordiesel cars. Approximately half of these reductions will be derived frompower train improvements (including starting and stopping) and halffrom an improvement in energy demand. Aerodynamics, rollingresistance and lightweight design will contribute as described below.

For the large size sector, a slightly higher 60% emissions reductionis predicted, resulting from higher mass reduction and greaterdownsizing potentials (due to current over-motorisation). Inaddition, we have assumed political measures have been introduced,such as luxury taxes, in addition to high fuel costs, to reduce thesales of very large SUVs (Sport Utility Vehicles) for passengertransport. This means that the size of vehicles within the segmentwill also decrease over the years. Examples of future cross-overSUVs are projected, for example by Lovins and Cramer90.

Although considerable improvements are in sight for conventionalgasoline and diesel engines without hybridisation, they will betechnically hard to reach. Significant CO2 reductions in the short tomedium term will therefore be much easier and cheaper to achievewith the hybridisation of power trains.

12

cars o

f the fu

ture

|E

NE

RG

Y [R

]EV

OL

UT

ION

figure 12.3: energy consumption of reference target vehicles for three size segments in litres of gasoline equivalent per 100 km (VALUES GIVEN FOR THE NEW EUROPEAN DRIVE CYCLE (NEDC) TEST CYCLE).

battery electric

plugin-hybrid electric

fuel cel hydrogen

diesel hybrid

gasoline hybrid

diesel

gasoline

0 1 2 3

Small

0 1 2 3 4 5

Mdedium Large

0 1 2 3 4 5

not available

references88 SIMILAR TO JAPAN’S K-CAR, FIAT 500 ETC.89 FRIEDRICH, A. (2006): FEASIBILITY OF LOW CARBON CARS, IN UMWELTBUNDESAMT.90 LOVINS, A.B. AND D.R. CRAMER (2004): HYPERCARS®, HYDROGEN, AND THEAUTOMOTIVE TRANSITION. INT. J. VEHICLE DESIGN. VOL. 35(NOS. 1/2).

© A

. SA

BE

RI/

DR

EA

MST

IME

© G

P/T

HO

RST

EN

KL

AP

SC

H

image 4 WHEEL DRIVE.

image TESTRIDE SMILE CAR,GREENPEACE HELPED PRODUCE ANENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLIER CAR.

178

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

hybrid vehicles

Hybrid drive trains consist of at least two different energy convertersand two energy storage units. The most common is the hybrid-electricdrive train, although there are also proposals for kinetic andhydraulic hybrids. Advantages of the combination of the internalcombustion engine with a second source of power arise from avoidinginefficient working regimes of the internal combustion engine (ICE),recuperation of braking energy, engine displacement downsizing andautomated gear switch. For hybrid-electric vehicles, there are severaldifferent architectures and levels of hybridisation proposed.

Hybrid vehicles have been available since the 1990s. In 2006,approximately 400,000 hybrid cars were sold, which is less than 1%of world car production. An increasing number of hybrid models arebeing announced, however. For this study we have used referencevalues of 491, 4.592, 8.393 lge/100 km respectively for small, mediumand large gasoline vehicles94.

For the reference target vehicles in 2050, we have projected thefollowing values, depending on the vehicle segment.

small segment: As explained above, the small segment vehicles willbe of the ‘1 litre car’ type - smaller and lighter than today. Adedicated vehicle in the 500 kg class, with three seats and with ahighly efficient propulsion system, will be standard by 2050,especially for commuting or other journeys were no multi-purposefamily type vehicle is necessary. The fuel consumption for this type ofvehicle is projected to be 1.6 lge/100 km.

medium segment: We developed our vision of reaching 60 g CO2

per km for the medium segment following the technological buildingblocks described below, although this might not be the only way toreach the target.

• A 25% emissions reduction is envisaged by using turbo chargingwith variable turbine geometry, external cooled exhaust gasrecirculation, gasoline direct injection (2nd generation) andvariable valve control/cam phase shifting with respectivescavenging strategies. These measures all result in a downsizingand down speeding of the engine95.

• An additional potential for a 25% saving, related to the previous step,will come from hybridisation and the benefits in terms of start/stopimprovements, regenerative braking and further downsizing. Wasteheat recovery by thermoelectric generators will contribute to the on-board power supply, which saves an additional 3 to 5%96 97.

• A reduction in the vehicle’s mass from 360 kg to 1,000 kg will reduceenergy demand by about 18%98. To achieve lightweight construction,methods such as topology optimisation, multi-material design and highlyintegrated components will be used. Mass reductions of 60 to 120 kgfor midsized cars have already been achieved99. The production andrecycling processes of lightweight materials such as magnesium andcarbon fibres will also be improved in 30-40 years time, thus avoiding ashift in emissions from the utilisation to the production phase.

• Aerodynamic resistance, aerodynamic drag and frontal areas offerfurther potential for improvements. By optimising the car’sunderside, engine air flows and contours we project an additionallowering of energy demand by 8%.

• Rolling resistance depends on the material used for the tyre, theconstruction of the tyre and its radius, tyre pressures and drivingspeed. The tyre industry has proposed new concepts for wheels whichare intended to lower rolling resistance by 50% by 2030100 101.Reducing the rolling coefficient by 1/1000 will lead to fuel savings of0.08 l/100 km102. This results in an additional 12% CO2 savings.

• Further potentials for energy savings will come from ‘intelligentcontrollers’ which improve energy management and drive traincontrol strategies by recognising frequently driven journeys. Improvedtraffic management to help a driver find the energy optimised routemight also make a contribution. Other options for hybridisation couldcome from free piston linear generators, which produce electricitywith a constant high efficiency, at the same time avoiding part loadconditions because of the variable cylinder capacity103.

From the technologies and potentials described here, we project thatwithin the next 40 years an improvement of 64% in energyconsumption for hybrid vehicles is achievable, resulting in 2.6 l/100km or 60 g CO2/km for a middle sized car in the NEDC test cycle. Thiscorresponds to an annual improvement of 2.2%. It is likely that othercombinations will lead to similar results, for example by following fullhybridisation first, with a potential saving of 44%104[26] and addingcomplementary measures. We have also applied an 18% increase infuel consumption based on a realistic assessment of driving patterns.The Volkswagen Golf V FSI 1.6 l, with a 1,360 kg mass and 163 gCO2/km in NEDC was used as a starting point105.

large segment: For large vehicles, the same technologies asdescribed for the medium segment can be applied. We believe,however, that the potential for improvements is higher and projectfuel consumption in 2050 at 3.5 lge/100 km. In addition, we assumethat political measures to reduce the sales of very large SUVs forpassenger transport have been introduced, so that the size ofvehicles within the segment will also decrease.

12

cars o

f the fu

ture

|E

NE

RG

Y [R

]EV

OL

UT

ION

references91 OWN ESTIMATE92 TOYOTA PRIUS II IN NEDC TEST CYCLE93 LEXUS RX 400 H IN NEDC TEST CYCLE94 KBA FUEL CONSUMPTION AND EMISSIONS TYPE APPROVAL FIGURES WITH A NATIONALOR EC WHOLE VEHICLE TYPE APPROVAL, KRAFTFAHRT-BUNDESAMT: FLENSBURG.95 FRAIDL, G.K., P.E. KAPUS, K. PREVEDEL, AND A. FÜRHAPTER (2007): DI TURBO: DIENÄCHSTEN SCHRITTE. IN 28. INTERNATIONALES WIENER MOTORENSYMPOSIUM, WIEN: VDI.96 THACHER, E.F., B.T. HELENBROOK, M.A. KARRI, AND C.J. RICHTER (2006): TESTING OFAN AUTOMOBILE EXHAUST THERMOELECTRIC GENERATOR IN A LIGHT TRUCK. PROC.IMECHE VOL. 221 PART D: J. AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING. VOL. 221(JAUTO51).97 FRIEDRICH, H.E., P. TREFFINGER, AND W.E. MÜLLER (2007): MANAGEMENT VONSEKUNDÄRENERGIE UND ENERGIEWANDLUNG VON VERLUSTWÄRMESTRÖMEN, INDOKUMENTATION CO2 - DIE HERAUSFORDERUNG FÜR UNSERE ZUKUNFT, VIEWEG / GWVFACHVERLAGE GMBH: MÜNCHEN.98 RELATED TO THE ALREADY LOWER ENERGY USE OF THE PREVIOUS STEP99 SLC (2007): SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES OF EMISSION REDUCEDLIGHT-WEIGHT CAR CONCEPTS: SUPERLIGHT-CAR/SLC, COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH &DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CO-FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION UNDER THE 6THFRAMEWORK PROGRAMME.100 MICHELIN (2005): DIE REIFEN-FELGEN-KOMBINATION „TWEEL“ KOMMT VÖLLIGOHNE LUFTDRUCK AUS. PRESS RELEASE. IN NORTH AMERICAN INTERNATIONALAUTOSHOW (NAIAS).101 WIES, B. (2007): IST DER GUMMI AUSGEREIZT? PRÄSENTATION IMNATURHISTORISCHES MUSEUM, WIEN, 1. OKTOBER 2007.102 POSZNANSKI-EISENSCHMIDT (2007): VDA TECHNICAL CONGRESS.103 ACHTEN, P.A.J., J.P.J.V.D. OEVER, J. POTMA, AND G.E.M. VAEL (2000): HORSEPOWER WITHBRAINS: THE DESIGN OF THE CHIRON FREE PISTON ENGINE, IN SAE TECHNICAL PAPERSERIES, 2000-01-2545; MAX, E. (2005): FREE PISTON ENERGY CONVERTER, IN ELECTRICVEHICLE SYMPOSIUM 21: MONACO; POHL, S.-E. AND M. GRÄF (2005): DYNAMIC SIMULATIONOF A FREE PISTON LINEAR ALTERNATOR, IN MODELICA 2005, SCHMITZ, G.: HAMBURG.104 SCHMIDT, G. (2006): ANTRIEBE FÜR DEN EUROPÄISCHEN MARKT UND DIE ROLLE VONHYBRIDKONZEPTEN, IN 10. HANDELSBLATT JAHRESTAGUNG AUTOMOBILTECHNOLOGIEN.105 KBA FUEL CONSUMPTION AND EMISSIONS TYPE APPROVAL FIGURES WITH A NATIONALOR EC WHOLE VEHICLE TYPE APPROVAL, KRAFTFAHRT-BUNDESAMT: FLENSBURG.

179

battery electric vehicles

Battery electric vehicles already have a long history, starting in1881 with the first electric vehicle powered by a secondary Plantébattery106. Considerable activity in the 1990s resulted in a number ofproduction scale electric cars such as the EV1 (GM), Saxoelectrique (Citroen), Hijet EV (Daihatsu), Th!nk City (Ford), EVPlus (Honda), Altra EV (Nissan), Clio Electric (Renault) and theRAV 4 (Toyota). At the beginning of the 21st century the TeslaRoadster is among the most prominent. There is also a continuousflow of prototype electric cars, including the Ion (Peugeot), E1(BMW), A-Class electric (DaimlerChysler) and E-com (Toyota).

Battery electric vehicles are already very efficient. A fuelconsumption of 1.7 litres gasoline equivalent /100 km is reportedfor the Ford e-Ka107, 2.1 l/100 km for the Ford Ecostar and 3.4l/100 km for the Chrysler van108. In the future we anticipatereference target values of 0.7 l/100 km for small size cars based onsimulations for micro cars and 1.4 l/100 km for medium sizevehicles based on simulations of city and compact class vehicles. Wedo not consider battery vehicles for the large vehicle segment.

There is a considerable gap between test cycle results and realdriving experience because of auxiliary power needs, for example forheating, cooling and other electrical services. We have thereforeapplied a factor of 1.7 to the transfer from test cycle to real worlddriving based on simulation results.

Battery electric vehicles carry their energy along on board in achemical form. The future battery technology for vehicles will mostprobably be based on Lithium because of good energy densities andcost prospects. Remaining issues associated with the application ofbatteries in vehicles are safety, long term durability and costs.However, under the most optimistic estimates for batterydevelopment, battery electric vehicles will mainly be small vehiclesand those with dedicated usage profiles like urban fleets. Otherproblems to be solved are fast recharging and cycle stability.Technical solutions have already been proposed, and the costreduction target for batteries in the long term is to reach 1/40th oftoday’s figures. An enormous amount of research is being carried out,as well as production of the first vehicle-type batteries. This scenarioassumes the introduction of battery electric vehicles from 2015.

plug-in-hybrid electric vehicles

Plug-in-hybrids are a combination of conventional hybrids andbattery electric vehicles. They promise to provide both advantages:using low carbon and cheap energy from the grid, a wide travelrange and grid independent driving when necessary. Plug-in-hybridscan be adapted from conventional hybrids by changing to a highercapacity battery, but different concepts, so-called series hybrids, arealso proposed. Again, depending on the control strategy, differentconcepts are possible. The ICE, for example, is designed as a range-extender to recharge the battery only or a battery plusICE/generator provides energy, depending on the power need. Fueland energy consumption depend very much on the system layout andcontrol strategy, combined with the distance, frequency and speeddriven. We project 2.3, 2.4, 4.5 lge/100 km following the announcedspecification for the Volvo Recharge concept car and other input109.

By the year 2050 we project that plug-in hybrids will use 10% moreenergy in electric mode compared to our projection for batteryelectric vehicles due to their increased weight. Once the battery isbelow the recharge limit, the ICE/generator will provide the energyin part or full. In this operating mode we again project 10% higherfuel consumption than their conventional hybrid counterparts. Interms of CO2 balance the distribution of kilometres driven in electricand ICE modes is crucial. We anticipate that 80% of all kilometreswill be driven in electric mode. In this scenario the introduction ofplug-in-hybrid electric vehicles starts in 2015.

fuel cell hydrogen

Fuel cell vehicles have reached a high level of readiness for massproduction. The polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell provides highpower density, resulting in low weight, cost and volume . Averagedrive cycle efficiencies have reached 3.5 lge/100 km111. Majorproblems still to be solved are durability, operating temperature rangeand cost reductions. Hydrogen on-board storage to provide a largedriving range is a further issue not finally solved. Nevertheless, thetechnology seems ready to begin the transition into the mass market.

The main problem in fact is not so much the vehicles themselves asthe hydrogen they need. Before the vehicles can operate, a hydrogeninfrastructure needs to be established. The investment involved isrisky, not least because of the competing electric systems. Becauseof energy losses in the hydrogen production chain, electricity appearsto be cheaper, easier to handle and more environmentally friendly –at least until there is renewable electricity in abundance.

The hydrogen fuel cell vehicle might find its niche, however, wherethe driving range of battery electric vehicles is too low and/or locallyemission free driving is demanded or the freedom from grid-connecting is valued more highly. We have projected a 35%improvement compared to today’s fuel cell vehicles as the targetreference value because of the potential for both fuel cell systemimprovement and lightweight, rolling resistance and aerodynamicvehicles, as already described.

12

cars o

f the fu

ture

|E

NE

RG

Y [R

]EV

OL

UT

ION

© R

. MA

RIN

ELL

O/D

RE

AM

TIM

E

image NEW FUEL EFFICIENT HYBRIDCAR DESIGN.

image CHARGING AN ELECTRIC CAR.

© M

. SH

AK

E/D

RE

MST

IME

references106 WESTBROOK, M.H. (2001): THE ELECTRIC CAR. DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE OFBATTERY, HYBRID AND FUEL-CELL CARS: THE INSTITUTION OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS.107 BUSCH, R. AND P. SCHMITZ (2001): THE E-KA - AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE ASTECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATOR, IN EVS18: BERLIN.108 OTA (1995): ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY: VISIONS OF A SUPER-EFFICIENTFAMILY CAR, OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT.109 BANDIVADEKAR, A.P. (2008): EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF ADVANCED VEHICLE ANDFUEL TECHNOLOGIES IN U.S. LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE FLEET, IN ENGINEERING SYSTEMSDIVISION, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY.110 NEBURCHILOV, V., J. MARTIN, H. WANG, AND J. ZHANG (2007): A REVIEW OF POLYMERELECTROLYTE MEMBRANES FOR DIRECT METHANOL FUEL CELLS. JOURNAL OF POWERSOURCES. 169(2): P. 221-238; ZHANG, J., Z. XIE, J. ZHANG, Y. TANG, C. SONG, T. NAVESSIN, Z.SHI, D. SONG, H. WANG, D.P. WILKINSON, Z.-S. LIU, AND S. HOLDCROFT (2006): HIGHTEMPERATURE PEM FUEL CELLS. JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES. 160(2): P. 872-891.111 HONDA (2007): FCX CLARITY, WWW.HONDA.COM.

180

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

projection of future vehicle technology mix

We are convinced that the share of hybrid cars will grow enormously.For the industrialised regions, we anticipate a sales share of 65% forhybrid power trains by 2050 and for all other regions 50%, apartfrom Africa, with 25%. This share includes all types of non-gridconnected hybrids. In 2050 the balance of different hybrids will bethat in Europe, North America and OECD Pacific roughly 20% arepowered by conventional ICE engines, roughly 40% are grid-connectable and 40% are autonomous hybrids. For all other regions,34% will be conventional, a third plug-in-hybrids and a thirdautonomous hybrids. Africa is again treated differently.

To power all sizes of vehicles with the same technology does not makesense. We have therefore further projected that a large share of plug-in-electric cars in the small vehicle segment (80%) will be batteryelectric vehicles. Two-thirds of the medium sized vehicles and all of thelarge vehicles will be plug-in-hybrids, thus still having an internalcombustion engine on board.

projection of vehicle segment split

We have disaggregated the light duty vehicle sales into threesegments: small, medium and large vehicles. This gives us theopportunity to show the effect of ‘driving smaller cars’. The size andCO2 emissions of the vehicles are particularly interesting in the lightof the enormous growth predicted in the LDV stock. For ourpurposes we have divided up the numerous car types as follows. Thesmall car bracket includes city, supermini, microvans, mini SUV,minicompact cars and two seaters. The medium sized bracketincludes lower medium/subcompact, medium class and compactcars, car derived vans and small station wagons, upper mediumclass, midsize cars and station wagons, executive class, passengervans (subcompact, compact and standard MPV), car derivedpickups, subcompact and compact SUVs, 2WD and 4WD. Withinthe large car bracket we have included all kinds of luxury class,luxury MPV, medium and heavy vans, compact and full-size pickuptrucks (2WD, 4WD), standard and luxury SUVs.

In examining the segment split, we have focused most strongly onthe two world regions which will be the largest emitters of CO2 fromcars in 2050: North America and China. In North America todaythe small vehicle segment is almost non-existant. We havenonetheless applied a considerable growth rate of 8% per year,triggered by rising fuel prices and possibly vehicle taxes. For China,we have anticipated the same share of the mature car market as forEurope and projected that the small segment will grow by 2.3% peryear at the expenses of the larger segments in the light of risingmass mobility. The segment split is shown in Figure 12.5.

12

cars o

f the fu

ture

|E

NE

RG

Y [R

]EV

OL

UT

ION

figure 12.4: sales share of conventional ICE, autonomoushybrid and grid-connectable vehicles in 2050

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0

OE

CD

Eur

ope

OE

CD

Nor

th A

mer

ica

OE

CD

Pac

ific

Tran

siti

on E

cono

mie

s

Chi

na

Indi

a

Dev

elop

ing

Asi

a

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Afr

ica

Mid

dle

Eas

t

•AUTONOMOUS HYBRID VEHICLES

• GRID-CONNECTABLE VEHICLES

• CONVENTIONAL

figure 12.5: vehicle sales by segment in 2005 and 2050 for ten world regions

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0

2005

2050

OECDEurope

2005

2050

OECD NorthAmerica

2005

2050

OECDPacific

2005

2050

TransitionEconomies

2005

2050

China

2005

2050

India

2005

2050

DevelopingAsia

2005

2050

LatinAmerica

2005

2050

Africa

2005

2050

Middle East

•LARGE

•MEDIUM

• SMALL

181

projection of switch to alternative fuels

A switch to renewable fuels in the car fleet is one of the cornerstonesof our low CO2 car scenario, with the most prominent element thedirect use of renewable electricity in cars. The different types ofelectric and hybrid cars, such as battery electric and plug-in-hybrid,are summarised as ‘plug-in electric’. Their introduction will start inindustrialised countries in 2015, following an s-curve pattern, and areprojected to reach about 40% of total LDV sales in the EU, NorthAmerica and the Pacific OECD by 2050. Due to the higher costs ofthe technology and renewable electricity availability, we have slightlydelayed progress in other countries. More cautious targets areapplied for Africa. The sales split in vehicles by fuel is presented inFigure 12.7 for 2005 and 2050.

projection of global vehicle stock development

Differences in forecasts for the growth of vehicle sales in developingcountries are huge112. We have mainly used the projections from theReference Scenario. Slight changes were applied to vehicle sales insaturated markets such as Europe and North America, where we believethat massive policy intervention to promote modal shift and alternativeforms of car usage will show effects in vehicle sales in the long run.

12

cars o

f the fu

ture

|E

NE

RG

Y [R

]EV

OL

UT

ION

© T

AR

AN

55/D

RE

AM

STIM

E

© S

HU

TTLE

COCK

/DR

EA

MST

IMEimage PARKING SPACE FOR

HYBRIDS ONLY.

image INTERNAL WORKINGS OF A HYBRID CAR.

figure 12.6: development of the global car market

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0REF2000

REF2010

REF2020

REF2030

REF2040

REF2050

•MIDDLE EAST

• AFRICA

• LATIN AMERICA

• DEVELOPING ASIA

• INDIA

• CHINA

•TRANSITION ECONOMIES

• OECD PACIFIC

• OECD NORTH AMERICA

• OECD EUROPE

Sto

ck o

f fl

ight

dut

y ve

hicl

es (

mill

ions

)

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0E[R]2000

E[R]2010

E[R]2020

E[R]2030

E[R]2040

E[R]2050

Sto

ck o

f fl

ight

dut

y ve

hicl

es (

mill

ions

)

figure 12.7: fuel split in vehicle sales for 2005 and 2050 by ten world regions

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0

2005

2050

OECDEurope

2005

2050

OECD NorthAmerica

2005

2050

OECDPacific

2005

2050

TransitionEconomies

2005

2050

China

2005

2050

India

2005

2050

DevelopingAsia

2005

2050

LatinAmerica

2005

2050

Africa

2005

2050

Middle East

•PLUGIN ELECTRIC

• HYDROGEN

• CNG/LPG

• DIESEL

• PETROL

references112 MEYER, I., M. LEIMBACH, AND C.C. JAEGER (2007): INTERNATIONAL PASSENGERTRANSPORT AND CLIMATE CHANGE: A SECTOR ANALYSIS IN CAR DEMAND ANDASSOCIATED CO2 EMISSIONS FROM 2000 TO 2050. ENERGY POLICY. 35(12): P. 6332-6345.

182

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

projection of kilometres driven per year

Until a complete shift from fossil to renewable fuels is completed,driving on the road will be linked to CO2 emissions. Thus driving lesscontributes to our target for emissions reduction. However this isnot necessarily linked to less mobility because we have relied on themultitude of excellent opportunities for shifts from individualpassenger road transport towards less CO2 intense public or non-motorised transport.

In our scenario we have taken into account the effects of a variety ofpolicy measures which could be implemented all over the world andsummarised them in two indicators: numbers of vehicles (see thesection above) and annual kilometres driven (AKD). For AKD wehave applied a 0.25% reduction per year, assuming the first visibleeffect in 2010, resulting in a roughly 10% reduction by 2050. Thishas been coordinated into a model which projects the shift from carto rail or bus at 5%, with the additional 5% coming from LDVs aspart of the predicted demand reduction for all modes of transport113.

Figure 12.9 shows the effect of vehicle travel reduction over time byworld region. China shows a less typical pattern: while in Chinatoday many vehicles are used intensively, with many kilometrestravelled per year, with a growing individual mobility we assume thatAKD will move towards the global average.

summary of scenario results114

A combination of ambitious efforts to introduce higher efficiencyvehicle technologies, a major switch to grid-connected electricvehicles and incentives for travellers to save CO2 all lead to theconclusion that it is possible to reduce emissions from well-to-wheelin 2050 by roughly 25%115 compared to 1990 and 40% comparedto 2005. Even so, 74% of the final energy used in cars will still comefrom fossil fuel sources, 70% from gasoline and diesel. Renewableelectricity covers 19% of total car energy demand, bio fuels cover5% and hydrogen 2%. Energy consumption in total is reduced by23% in 2050 compared to 2005, in spite of tremendous increases insome world regions. The peak in global CO2 emissions occurs between2010 and 2015. From 2010 onwards, new legislation in the US andEurope contributes towards breaking the upwards trend in emissions.From 2020 onwards, we can see the effect of introducing grid-connected electric cars. The development of CO2 emissions, takinginto account upstream emissions, is shown in Figure 12.8.

12

cars o

f the fu

ture

|E

NE

RG

Y [R

]EV

OL

UT

ION

figure 12.9: average annual kilometres driven per world region

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

•OECD EUROPE

• OECD NORTH AMERICA

• OECD PACIFIC

•TRANSITION ECONOMIES

• CHINA

• INDIA

• DEVELOPING ASIA

• LATIN AMERICA

• AFRICA

•MIDDLE EAST

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

Kms 0

CO

2em

issi

ons

per

year

in M

t

figure 12.8: well-to-wheel CO2 emissions of light duty vehicles in the reference and energy [r]evolution scenarios from 2000 to 2050

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

RE

F

E[R

]

2000

RE

F

E[R

]

2005

RE

F

E[R

]

2010

RE

F

E[R

]

2015

RE

F

E[R

]

2020

RE

F

E[R

]

2025

RE

F

E[R

]

2030

RE

F

E[R

]

2035

RE

F

E[R

]

2040

RE

F

E[R

]

2045

RE

F

E[R

]

2050

•MIDDLE EAST

• AFRICA

• LATIN AMERICA

• DEVELOPING ASIA

• INDIA

• CHINA

•TRANSITION ECONOMIES

• OECD PACIFIC

• OECD NORTH AMERICA

• OECD EUROPE

references113 GRAUS, W. AND E. BLOMEN (2008): GLOBAL LOW ENERGY DEMAND SCENARIOS -UPDATE 2008, ECOFYS NETHERLANDS BV114 THESE RESULTS ARE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LDV SCENARIO WITHSEVERAL SPECIFIC ASSUMPTIONS ON E.G. UPSTREAM EMISSIONS ETC. WHICH ARE NOTCOORDINATED WITH THE SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT OVER ALL SECTORS. ONLY THEMESAP MODEL WILL GIVE THE FINAL RESULTS.115 THERE IS NO RELIABLE NUMBER FOR THE GLOBAL 1990 LDV EMISSIONSAVAILABLE, THEREFORE THIS HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS A ROUGH ESTIMATE..

183

13policy recommendations

GLOBAL

“...so I urge thegovernment to act and to act quickly.”LYN ALLISON LEADER OF THE AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS, SENATOR 2004-2008

13

STANDBY POWER IS WASTED POWER.GLOBALLY, WE HAVE 50 DIRTY POWERPLANTS RUNNING JUST FOR OUR WASTEDSTANDBY POWER. OR: IF WE WOULDREDUCE OUR STANDBY TO JUST 1 WATT, WE CAN AVOID THE BUILDING OF 50 NEWDIRTY POWER PLANTS. © M. DIETRICH/DREAMSTIME

184

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

At a time when governments around the world are in the process ofliberalising their electricity markets, the increasing competitivenessof renewable energy should lead to higher demand. Withoutpolitical support, however, renewable energy remains at adisadvantage, marginalised by distortions in the world’s electricitymarkets created by decades of massive financial, political andstructural support to conventional technologies. Developingrenewables will therefore require strong political and economicefforts, especially through laws which guarantee stable tariffs overa period of up to 20 years.

At present new renewable energy generators have to compete withold nuclear and fossil fuelled power stations which produceelectricity at marginal costs because consumers and taxpayers havealready paid the interest and depreciation on the originalinvestments. Political action is needed to overcome these distortionsand create a level playing field.

Renewable energy technologies would already be competitive if theyhad received the same attention as fossil fuels and nuclear in termsof R&D funding, subsidies, and if external costs were reflected inenergy prices. Removing public subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclearand applying the ‘polluter pays’ principle to the energy markets,would go a long way to level the playing field and drastically reducethe need for renewables support. Unless this principle is fullyimplemented, renewable energy technologies need to receivecompensation and additional support measures in order to competein the distorted market.

Support mechanisms for the different sectors and technologies canvary according to regional characteristics, priorities or startingpoints. But some general principles should apply to any kind ofsupport mechanism. These criteria are:

effectiveness in reaching the targets The experiences in somecountries show that it is possible with the right design of a supportmechanism to reach agreed national targets. Any system to beadopted at a national level should focus on being effective indeploying new installed capacity and meeting the targets.

long term stability Whether price or quantity-based, policy makersneed to make sure that investors can rely on the long-term stabilityof any support scheme. It is absolutely crucial to avoid stop-and-gomarkets by changing the system or the level of support frequently.Therefore market stability has to be created with a stable long-termsupport mechanism.

simple and fast administrative procedures Complex licensingprocedures constitute one of the most difficult obstacles thatrenewables projects have to face. Administrative barriers have to beremoved at all levels. A ‘one-stop-shop’ system should be introducedand a clear timetable set for approving projects.

encouraging local and regional benefits and public acceptanceThe development of renewable technologies can have a significantimpact on local and regional areas, resulting from both installationand manufacturing. Some support schemes include publicinvolvements that hinder or facilitate the acceptance of renewabletechnologies. A support scheme should encourage local/regionaldevelopment, employment and income generation. It should alsoencourage public acceptance of renewables, including their positiveimpact and increased stakeholder involvement.

The following is an overview of current political frameworks andbarriers that need to be overcome in order to unlock renewableenergy’s great potential to become a major contributor to globalenergy supply. In the process it would also contribute to sustainableeconomic growth, high quality jobs, technology development, globalcompetitiveness and industrial and research leadership.

renewable energy targets

In recent years, as part of their greenhouse gas reduction policiesas well as for increasing security of energy supply, an increasingnumber of countries have established targets for renewable energy.These are either expressed in terms of installed capacity or as apercentage of energy consumption. Although these targets are notoften legally binding, they have served as an important catalyst forincreasing the share of renewable energy throughout the world,from Europe to the Far East to the USA.

A time horizon of just a few years is not long enough in theelectricity sector, where the investment horizon can be up to 40years. Renewable energy targets therefore need to have short,medium and long term steps and must be legally binding in order tobe effective. They should also be supported by mechanisms such asthe ‘feed-in tariff’. In order for the proportion of renewable energyto increase significantly, targets must be set in accordance with thelocal potential for each technology (wind, solar, biomass etc) andaccording to the local infrastructure, both existing and planned.

In recent years the wind and solar power industries have shown that itis possible to maintain a growth rate of 30 to 35% in the renewablessector. In conjunction with the European Photovoltaic IndustryAssociation, the European Solar Thermal Power Industry Associationand the European Wind Energy Association116, Greenpeace and EREChave documented the development of those industries from 1990onwards and outlined a prognosis for growth up to 2020.

13

po

licy recom

men

da

tion

s|

TA

RG

ET

S

references116 SOLAR GENERATION (EPIA), CONCENTRATED SOLAR THERMAL POWER – NOW!(GREENPEACE), WINDFORCE 12 (EWEA), GLOBAL WIND ENERGY OUTLOOK 2006, GWEC..

185

demands for the energy sector

Greenpeace and the renewables industry have a clear agenda forchanges which need to be made in energy policy to encourage ashift to renewable sources. The main demands are:

• Phase out all subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

• Internalise the external costs (social and environmental) ofenergy production through ‘cap and trade’ emissions trading.

• Mandate strict efficiency standards for all energy consumingappliances, buildings and vehicles.

• Establish legally binding targets for renewable energy andcombined heat and power generation.

• Reform the electricity markets by guaranteeing priority access tothe grid for renewable power generators.

• Provide defined and stable returns for investors, for examplethrough feed-in tariff programmes.

• Implement better labelling and disclosure mechanisms to providemore environmental product information.

• Increase research and development budgets for renewable energyand energy efficiency.

Conventional energy sources receive an estimated $250-300117

billion in subsidies per year worldwide, resulting in heavily distortedmarkets. Subsidies artificially reduce the price of power, keeprenewable energy out of the market place and prop up non-competitive technologies and fuels. Eliminating direct and indirectsubsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear power would help move ustowards a level playing field across the energy sector. The 2001report of the G8 Renewable Energy Task Force argued that “re-addressing them [subsidies] and making even a minor re-directionof these considerable financial flows toward renewables, provides anopportunity to bring consistency to new public goals and to includesocial and environmental costs in prices.” The Task Forcerecommended that “G8 countries should take steps to removeincentives and other supports for environmentally harmful energytechnologies, and develop and implement market-based mechanismsthat address externalities, enabling renewable energy technologiesto compete in the market on a more equal and fairer basis.”

Renewable energy would not need special provisions if markets werenot distorted by the fact that it is still virtually free for electricityproducers (as well as the energy sector as a whole) to pollute.Subsidies to fully mature and polluting technologies are highlyunproductive. Removing subsidies from conventional electricitywould not only save taxpayers’ money. It would also dramaticallyreduce the need for renewable energy support.

This is a fuller description of what needs to be done to eliminate orcompensate for current distortions in the energy market.

removal of energy market distortions A major barrier preventingrenewable energy from reaching its full potential is the lack of pricingstructures in the energy markets that reflect the full costs to society ofproducing energy. For more than a century, power generation wascharacterised by national monopolies with mandates to financeinvestments in new production capacity through state subsidies and/orlevies on electricity bills. As many countries are moving in thedirection of more liberalised electricity markets, these options are nolonger available, which puts new generating technologies, such as windpower, at a competitive disadvantage relative to existing technologies.This situation requires a number of responses.

internalisation of the social and environmental costs ofpolluting energy The real cost of energy production by conventionalenergy includes expenses absorbed by society, such as health impactsand local and regional environmental degradation - from mercurypollution to acid rain – as well as the global negative impacts fromclimate change. Hidden costs include the waiving of nuclear accidentinsurance that is too expensive to be covered by the nuclear powerplant operators. The Price Anderson Act, for instance, limits theliability of US nuclear power plants in the case of an accident to anamount of up to $ 98 million per plant, and only $15 million per yearper plant, with the rest being drawn from an industry fund of up to $10 billion. After that the taxpayer becomes responsible118.

Environmental damage should, as a priority, be rectified at source.Translated into energy generation that would mean that, ideally,production of energy should not pollute and it is the energyproducers’ responsibility to prevent it. If they do pollute they shouldpay an amount equal to the damage the production causes tosociety as a whole. The environmental impacts of electricitygeneration can be difficult to quantify, however. How do we put aprice on lost homes on Pacific Islands as a result of melting icecapsor on deteriorating health and human lives?

An ambitious project, funded by the European Commission - ExternE– has tried to quantify the true costs, including the environmentalcosts, of electricity generation. It estimates that the cost of producingelectricity from coal or oil would double and that from gas wouldincrease by 30% if external costs, in the form of damage to theenvironment and health, were taken into account. If thoseenvironmental costs were levied on electricity generation according totheir impact, many renewable energy sources would not need anysupport. If, at the same time, direct and indirect subsidies to fossilfuels and nuclear power were removed, the need to support renewableelectricity generation would seriously diminish or cease to exist.

introduce the “polluter pays" principle As with the othersubsidies, external costs must be factored into energy pricing if themarket is to be truly competitive. This requires that governmentsapply a “polluter pays” system that charges the emittersaccordingly, or applies suitable compensation to non-emitters.Adoption of polluter pays taxation to electricity sources, orequivalent compensation to renewable energy sources, and exclusionof renewables from environment-related energy taxation, is essentialto achieve fairer competition in the world’s electricity markets.

13

po

licy recom

men

da

tion

s|

TA

RG

ET

S

references117 ‘WORLD ENERGY ASSESSMENT: ENERGY AND THE CHALLENGE OFSUSTAINABILITY’, UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME, 2000118 HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/PRICE-ANDERSON_NUCLEAR_INDUSTRIES_INDEMNITY_ACT

© G

P/K

AT

E D

AV

ISO

N

image LOCALS AND GREENPEACE SETTING UP WINDTURBINES IN THAILAND.

186

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

electricity market reform Renewable energy technologies couldalready be competitive if they had received the same attention asother sources in terms of R&D funding and subsidies, and if externalcosts were reflected in power prices. Essential reforms in theelectricity sector are necessary if new renewable energy technologiesare to be accepted on a larger scale. These reforms include:

removal of electricity sector barriers Complex licensingprocedures and bureaucratic hurdles constitute one of the mostdifficult obstacles faced by renewable energy projects in manycountries. A clear timetable for approving projects should be set forall administrations at all levels. Priority should be given torenewable energy projects. Governments should propose moredetailed procedural guidelines to strengthen the existing legislationand at the same time streamline the licensing procedure forrenewable energy projects.

A major barrier is the short to medium term surplus of electricitygenerating capacity in many OECD countries. Due to over-capacity itis still cheaper to burn more coal or gas in an existing power plantthan to build, finance and depreciate a new renewable power plant.The effect is that, even in those situations where a new technologywould be fully competitive with new coal or gas fired power plants,the investment will not be made. Until we reach a situation whereelectricity prices start reflecting the cost of investing in new capacityrather than the marginal cost of existing capacity, support forrenewables will still be required to level the playing field.

Other barriers include the lack of long term planning at national,regional and local level; lack of integrated resource planning; lackof integrated grid planning and management; lack of predictabilityand stability in the markets; no legal framework for internationalbodies of water; grid ownership by vertically integrated companiesand a lack of long-term R&D funding.

There is also a complete absence of grids for large scale renewableenergy sources, such as offshore wind power or concentrating solarpower (CSP) plants; weak or non-existant grids onshore; littlerecognition of the economic benefits of embedded/distributedgeneration; and discriminatory requirements from utilities for gridaccess that do not reflect the nature of the renewable technology.

The reforms needed to address market barriers to renewables include:

• Streamlined and uniform planning procedures and permittingsystems and integrated least cost network planning.

• Fair access to the grid at fair, transparent prices and removal ofdiscriminatory access and transmission tariffs.

• Fair and transparent pricing for power throughout a network, withrecognition and remuneration for the benefits of embedded generation.

• Unbundling of utilities into separate generation and distribution companies.

• The costs of grid infrastructure development and reinforcementmust be carried by the grid management authority rather thanindividual renewable energy projects.

• Disclosure of fuel mix and environmental impact to end users toenable consumers to make an informed choice of power source.

priority grid access Rules on grid access, transmission and costsharing are very often inadequate. Legislation must be clear,especially concerning cost distribution and transmission fees.Renewable energy generators should be guaranteed priority access.Where necessary, grid extension or reinforcement costs should beborne by the grid operators, and shared between all consumers,because the environmental benefits of renewables are a public goodand system operation is a natural monopoly.

support mechanisms for renewables The following sectionprovides an overview of the existing support mechanisms andexperiences of their operation. Support mechanisms remain asecond best solution for correcting market failures in the electricitysector. However, introducing them is a practical political solution toacknowledge that, in the short term, there are no other practicalways to apply the polluter pays principle.

Overall, there are two types of incentive to promote deployment ofrenewable energy. These are Fixed Price Systems where thegovernment dictates the electricity price (or premium) paid to theproducer and lets the market determine the quantity, andRenewable Quota Systems (in the USA referred to as RenewablePortfolio Standards) where the government dictates the quantity ofrenewable electricity and leaves it to the market to determine theprice. Both systems create a protected market against abackground of subsidised, depreciated conventional generatorswhose external environmental costs are not accounted for. Their aimis to provide incentives for technology improvements and costreductions, leading to cheaper renewables that can compete withconventional sources in the future.

The main difference between quota based and price based systemsis that the former aims to introduce competition between electricityproducers. However, competition between technologymanufacturers, which is the most crucial factor in bringing downelectricity production costs, is present regardless of whethergovernment dictates prices or quantities. Prices paid to wind powerproducers are currently higher in many European quota basedsystems (UK, Belgium, Italy) than in fixed price or premiumsystems (Germany, Spain, Denmark).

• fixed price systems Fixed price systems include investmentsubsidies, fixed feed-in tariffs, fixed premium systems and tax credits.

Investment subsidies are capital payments usually made on thebasis of the rated power (in kW) of the generator. It is generallyacknowledged, however, that systems which base the amount ofsupport on generator size rather than electricity output can leadto less efficient technology development. There is therefore aglobal trend away from these payments, although they can beeffective when combined with other incentives.

Fixed feed-in tariffs (FITs), widely adopted in Europe, haveproved extremely successful in expanding wind energy inGermany, Spain and Denmark. Operators are paid a fixed pricefor every kWh of electricity they feed into the grid. In Germanythe price paid varies according to the relative maturity of theparticular technology and reduces each year to reflect fallingcosts. The additional cost of the system is borne by taxpayers orelectricity consumers.

13

po

licy recom

men

da

tion

s|

TA

RG

ET

S

187

The main benefit of a FIT is that it is administratively simple andencourages better planning. Although the FIT is not associatedwith a formal Power Purchase Agreement, distribution companiesare usually obliged to purchase all the production from renewableinstallations. Germany has reduced the political risk of the systembeing changed by guaranteeing payments for 20 years. The mainproblem associated with a fixed price system is that it does notlend itself easily to adjustment – whether up or down - to reflectchanges in the production costs of renewable technologies.

Fixed premium systems, sometimes called an “environmentalbonus” mechanism, operate by adding a fixed premium to thebasic wholesale electricity price. From an investor perspective,the total price received per kWh is less predictable than under afeed-in tariff because it depends on a constantly changingelectricity price. From a market perspective, however, it is arguedthat a fixed premium is easier to integrate into the overallelectricity market because those involved will be reacting tomarket price signals. Spain is the most prominent country tohave adopted a fixed premium system.

Tax credits, as operated in the US and Canada, offer a creditagainst tax payments for every kWh produced. In the UnitedStates the market has been driven by a federal Production TaxCredit (PTC) of approximately 1.8 cents per kWh. It is adjustedannually for inflation.

• renewable quota systems Two types of renewable quota systemshave been employed - tendering systems and green certificate systems.

Tendering systems involve competitive bidding for contracts toconstruct and operate a particular project, or a fixed quantity ofrenewable capacity in a country or state. Although other factorsare usually taken into account, the lowest priced bid invariablywins. This system has been used to promote wind power inIreland, France, the UK, Denmark and China.

The downside is that investors can bid an uneconomically lowprice in order to win the contract, and then not build the project.Under the UK’s NFFO (Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation) tendersystem, for example, many contracts remained unused. It waseventually abandoned. If properly designed, however, with longcontracts, a clear link to planning consent and a possible minimumprice, tendering for large scale projects could be effective, as it hasbeen for offshore oil and gas extraction in Europe’s North Sea.

Tradable green certificate (TGC) systems operate by offering“green certificates” for every kWh generated by a renewableproducer. The value of these certificates, which can be traded on amarket, is then added to the value of the basic electricity. A greencertificate system usually operates in combination with a risingquota of renewable electricity generation. Power companies arebound by law to purchase an increasing proportion of renewablesinput. Countries which have adopted this system include the UK,Sweden and Italy in Europe and many individual states in theUS, where it is known as a Renewable Portfolio Standard.

Compared with a fixed tender price, the TGC model is more riskyfor the investor, because the price fluctuates on a daily basis,unless effective markets for long-term certificate (and electricity)contracts are developed. Such markets do not currently exist. Thesystem is also more complex than other payment mechanisms.

Which one out of this range of incentive systems works best?Based on past experience it is clear that policies based on fixedtariffs and premiums can be designed to work effectively.However, introducing them is not a guarantee for success. Almostall countries with experience in mechanisms to supportrenewables have, at some point in time, used feed-in tariffs, butnot all have contributed to an increase in renewable electricityproduction. It is the design of a mechanism, in combination withother measures, which determines its success.

renewables for heating and cooling Largely forgotten, butequally important, is the heating and cooling sector. In manyregions of the world, such as Europe, nearly half of the total energydemand is for heating/cooling, a demand which can be addressedeasily at competitive prices.

Policies should make sure that specific targets and appropriatemeasures for renewable heating and cooling are part of anynational renewables strategy. These should foresee a coherent set ofmeasures dedicated to the promotion of renewables for heating andcooling, including financial incentives, awareness raising campaigns,training of installers, architects and heating engineers, anddemonstration projects. For new buildings, and those undergoingmajor renovation, an obligation to cover a minimum share of heatconsumption by renewables should be introduced, as alreadyimplemented in some countries and regions.

Measures should stimulate the deployment of the large potentialfor cost effective renewable heating and cooling, available alreadywith today’s technologies. At the same time, increased R&D effortsshould be undertaken, particularly in the fields of heat storage andrenewable cooling.

13

po

licy recom

men

da

tion

s|

TA

RG

ET

S

© G

P/V

INA

I D

ITH

AJO

HN

image A YOUNG BOY IS PART OF A GATHERING AT THECLIMATE DEFENDERS CAMP WHERE LOCALCOMMUNITIES AND PRO-RENEWABLE ENERGY GROUPSPLEDGE TO CONTINUE WORK TO HELP STOP CLIMATECHANGE. THE CAMP WAS ESTABLISHED TO OPPOSECOAL POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION IN ILOILO CITY INTHE PHILIPPINES.

188

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

14glossary & appendix

GLOBAL GLOSSARYAPPENDIX

14

“because we use suchinefficient lighting, 80 coal fired power plants are running day and night to produce the energy that is wasted.”GREENPEACE INTERNATIONALCLIMATE CAMPAIGN

ima

geC

OA

L F

IRE

D P

OW

ER

PL

AN

T.

© F

. FU

XA

/DR

EA

MST

IME

189

glossary of commonly used terms and abbreviations

CHP Combined Heat and Power CO2 Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gasGDP Gross Domestic Product (means of assessing a country’s wealth)PPP Purchasing Power Parity (adjustment to GDP assessment

to reflect comparable standard of living)IEA International Energy Agency

J Joule, a measure of energy: kJ = 1,000 Joules, MJ = 1 million Joules, GJ = 1 billion Joules, PJ = 1015 Joules, EJ = 1018 Joules

W Watt, measure of electrical capacity: kW = 1,000 watts, MW = 1 million watts, GW = 1 billion watts

kWh Kilowatt-hour, measure of electrical output: TWh = 1012 watt-hours

t/Gt Tonnes, measure of weight: Gt = 1 billion tonnes

definition of sectors

The definition of different sectors is analog to the sectorial breakdown of the IEA World Energy Outlook series.

All definitions below are from the IEA Key World Energy Statistics

Industry sector: Consumption in the industry sector includes thefollowing subsectors (energy used for transport by industry is notincluded -> see under “Transport”)

• Iron and steel industry

• Chemical industry

• Non-metallic mineral products e.g. glass, ceramic, cement etc.

• Transport equipment

• Machinery

• Mining

• Food and tobacco

• Paper, pulp and print

• Wood and wood products (other than pulp and paper)

• Construction

• Textile and Leather

Transport sector: The Transport sector includes all fuels fromtransport such as road, railway, aviation, domestic and navigation. Fuelused for ocean, costal and inland fishing is included in “Other Sectors”.

Other sectors: ‘Other sectors’ covers agriculture, forestry, fishing,residential, commercial and public services.

Non-energy use: This category covers use of other petroleumproducts such as paraffin waxes, lubricants, bitumen etc.

© S

. TE

SK

E

image NEXT EXIT ‘SUNSHINE’, CANADA.

conversion factors - fossil fuels

kJ/t

kJ/t

GJ/barrel

kJ/m3

1 cubic

1 barrel

1 US gallon

1 UK gallon

0.0283 m3

159 liter

3.785 liter

4.546 liter

FUEL

Coal

Lignite

Oil

Gas

23.03

8.45

6.12

38000.00

conversion factors - different energy units

Gcal

238.8

1

107

0.252

860

Mbtu

947.8

3.968

3968 x 107

1

3412.00

GWh

0.2778

1.163 x 10-3

11630

2.931 x 10-4

1

FROM

TJ

Gcal

Mtoe

Mbtu

GWh

Mtoe

2.388 x 10-5

10(-7)

1

2.52 x 10-8

8.6 x 10-5

TO: TJMULTIPLY BY

1

4.1868 x 10-3

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|G

LO

SS

AR

Y

appendix: global reference scenario

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

190

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

appendix: global reference scenario

table 14.1: global: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.4: global: installed capacity GW

table 14.6: global: primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.3: global: co2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.2: global: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

19,6736,9551,6203,3041,048

282,824

1683,362

2741372

51

2,107567141

1,142104151

2

1,484623

21,78014,910

7,5221,7614,4471,1522,824

284,0473,362

27413

31874

51

1,9581,941

017,890

287

1.3%

18.6%

2020

263209,9571,8134,925

94320

3,068324

4,164887

68119

266

2,487642134

1,331102272

6

1,579908

28,80719,86810,599

1,9476,2561,0453,068

205,8714,164

88768

595125

266

2,5412,579

523,677

961

3.3%

20.4%

2030

32,38013,153

1,9646,376

78617

3,173474

4,8331,260

120158

5412

2,989777137

1,597103367

9

1,8131,177

35,36924,91013,930

2,1017,974

8893,173

177,2864,8331,260

120841167

5412

2,9993,095

1729,256

1,392

3.9%

20.6%

2040

39,23317,505

2,1897,433

72515

3,345578

5,4401,545

167196

7720

3,392901136

1,78098

46612

1,9411,451

42,62630,87218,406

2,3249,213

8233,345

158,4995,4401,545

1671,044

2077720

3,3003,601

2735,698

1,731

4.1%

19.9%

2050

46,84922,892

2,4258,291

73314

3,517650

6,0271,736

213229

9528

3,7571,014

1361,917

60613

17

2,0621,695

50,60637,48223,905

2,56110,208

7933,517

149,6086,0271,736

2131,263

2459528

3,5694,058

4042,938

1,978

3.9%

19.0%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalGasLigniteOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Distribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

16,3115,0891,5322,6311,047

332,768

1242,923

1032

5611

1,915438166

1,088113109

1

1,410505

18,22612,138

5,5271,6983,7191,160

332,7683,3212,923

1032

23458

11

1,5961,597

015,018

106

0.6%

18.2%

2010

4,4151,209

268979371

55369

28989124

1011

20

605172

45301

4442

0

460144

5,0203,4451,382

3131,280

41555

3691,206

989124

107011

20

1342.7%

24.0%

2020

5,9401,758

2961,404

36437

39252

1,215346

4917

82

683181

38360

3568

1

478205

6,6224,4731,939

3331,763

39937

3921,7571,215

34649

11918

82

3966.0%

26.5%

2030

7,2622,342

3231,814

31330

40572

1,399440

862212

4

815211

36465

3171

2

556259

8,0775,5642,554

3582,279

34430

4052,1081,399

44086

1432412

4

5316.6%

26.1%

2040

8,8163,104

3612,236

32425

42686

1,558526120

2815

7

912245

35518

2784

2

602310

9,7276,8753,350

3962,754

35125

4262,4261,558

526120170

3015

7

6526.7%

24.9%

2050

10,7994,060

4022,807

44623

45295

1,711593153

3317

9

995279

35555

15109

3

636359

11,7948,6204,339

4373,362

46123

4522,7221,711

593153203

3617

9

7556.4%

23.1%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

3,690874257803354

65368

21878

592910

565141

54281

5632

0

439125

4,2542,8851,015

3111,084

41065

3681,001

87859

252

910

611.4%

23.5%

2010

532,251434,042128,188

18,389111,600175,865

30,81067,39812,103

985409

51,9241,974

212.6%

2020

632,485516,377161,262

18,422135,291201,402

33,47982,62914,989

3,1951,429

59,3753,621

2013.1%

2030

721,342591,380190,020

19,462157,044224,854

34,62395,33917,399

4,5362,572

65,6115,179

4313.2%

2040

794,412652,760211,515

20,907170,244250,093

36,497105,155

19,5855,5613,749

69,8986,289

7213.2%

2050

867,705716,620235,422

22,113180,559278,527

38,372112,713

21,6966,2514,775

72,3507,510

10113.0%

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share

2005

474,905383,120103,515

18,12499,741

161,739

30,20161,58610,521

372176

48,5941,921

212.9%

2010

11,0436,8121,8161,611

76341

1,793677225786105

12,8367,4892,0412,396

910

27,932131%4,8633,6456,411

12,442571

6,8944.1

2020

14,4169,5541,8522,284

69432

1,694623193795

83

16,11110,178

2,0453,078

810

33,541157%5,6184,0657,718

15,605535

7,6524.4

2030

17,36411,994

1,9702,769

60230

1,762642190858

72

19,12712,636

2,1603,627

703

38,716181%6,1994,4239,020

18,579496

8,3004.7

2040

19,55113,865

2,1152,987

55727

1,858682205909

61

21,41014,548

2,3213,896

645

43,095201%6,6844,630

10,52120,793

467

8,8034.9

2050

21,90115,964

2,2603,089

56325

1,880716195936

33

23,78116,680

2,4554,025

622

47,773223%7,1384,802

12,28323,106

443

9,1695.2

2005

8,7654,9771,7251,273

74348

1,899621287826165

10,6645,5982,0122,099

956

24,351114%4,2923,4055,800

10,293561

6,5033.7

2010

6,1215,512

5960

13

10,6599,958

68022

131,02997,29833,387

344

148,032112,768

34,663345257

24%

2020

6,3235,545

7591

19

11,96110,721

1,18852

146,045110,049

34,9051,091

165,256126,315

36,8511,091

998

24%

2030

6,5605,4651,070

224

13,21311,740

1,39579

160,350122,267

36,1371,946

181,830139,472

38,6011,9481,809

23%

2040

6,9225,4401,448

232

13,77112,147

1,516107

171,953131,179

37,9022,872

195,064148,766

40,8672,8742,558

24%

2050

7,3345,4481,841

342

14,34912,308

1,889152

182,702139,579

39,4603,664

207,744157,336

43,1893,6673,553

24%

2005

5,9005,305

5840

11

10,1369,637

48911

120,21788,07431,978

165

136,402103,015

33,050166171

24%

table 14.5: global: final energy demandPJ/a 2010

366,401332,134

93,53788,515

2,3901,2321,399

2560

1.6%

105,60228,351

5,4058,138

60921,05815,00925,100

107,914

2113.2%

132,99534,654

6,1997,918

6094,819

22,41626,882

33435,779

19332.4%

58,56416.0%

34,26725,753

6,4462,068

2020

433,428392,504114,452106,246

3,2342,8362,123

42614

2.9%

125,10737,915

7,7368,878

89025,53716,30527,610

1088,560

19514.0%

152,94445,199

9,2018,651

9354,635

25,56430,293

98337,017

60231.9%

69,49116.0%

40,92429,808

8,0063,110

2030

495,497449,948134,667123,913

3,9613,9582,790

57045

3.4%

142,28445,845

9,3979,3321,090

28,27017,59131,076

2019,588

38114.5%

172,99756,68511,796

9,6681,1954,385

27,98133,784

1,74637,693

1,05530.9%

78,68015.9%

45,54832,857

9,2863,405

2040

558,541508,478157,633144,436

4,5395,0343,552

71873

3.7%

158,35854,45510,822

9,5001,235

29,98118,99533,955

31210,600

55914.9%

192,48770,50014,18610,412

1,4824,210

28,78536,566

2,56037,982

1,47330%

86,97515.6%

50,06335,83010,535

3,698

2050

625,878571,298183,081168,647

5,0424,9494,333

852110

3.2%

174,85463,80712,174

9,7301,531

31,66820,17836,765

44411,412

84915.1%

213,36386,43316,42611,165

1,8874,009

29,02139,537

3,21938,025

1,95328.8%

93,73415.0%

54,58038,79511,794

3,992

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

328,700299,300

83,93680,145

2,077784930173

01.1%

91,75922,251

4,3128,009

50217,35713,62423,172

57,328

1213.3%

123,60530,885

5,2397,308

5334,795

20,76424,972

16034,583

13732.9%

53,77016.4%

29,40122,728

5,4981,174

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- GL

OB

AL

appendix: global energy [r]evolution scenario

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 2000 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

2010

361,501327,393

92,88987,364

2,3921,7181,415

2730

2.1%

102,32127,788

5,6328,6371,099

19,57913,90523,479

2928,279

36215.3%

132,18334,467

6,5968,127

9584,858

21,40326,053

52336,352

40033.9%

62,48417.3%

34,10822,348

9,7422,018

2020

383,814347,127

92,23380,879

2,6924,9963,3651,053

3016.9%

112,29533,91610,74611,668

3,91920,25910,26524,030

1,7579,1981,202

23.9%

142,59838,67312,92310,925

3,4823,624

16,28928,737

4,08038,727

1,54542.6%

93,75024.4%

36,68824,342

9,9362,410

2030

392,442354,335

89,98072,286

2,5007,9966,5723,105

62713.0%

114,02136,58316,97214,128

6,80116,959

6,61623,501

4,5339,5282,174

35.1%

150,33443,21821,60414,090

7,0632,825

11,44626,09310,65338,871

3,13854.1%

132,82833.8%

38,10725,39010,204

2,512

2040

393,451353,803

85,79659,949

2,20110,72611,851

7,7931,069

22.8%

113,58338,49323,77216,83510,79811,263

3,56520,969

7,91010,475

4,07350.2%

154,42348,03632,03616,63710,873

2,2577,029

20,91217,88836,704

4,96066.4%

178,81345.4%

39,64826,47710,558

2,612

2050

390,327349,845

83,30647,723

1,90612,75719,64415,595

1,27635.6%

110,78739,31229,07119,38014,491

4,6041,582

17,09811,92910,748

6,13365.3%

155,75253,12341,94317,37712,858

1,2523,818

14,84524,76932,984

7,58477.1%

221,65856.8%

40,48227,04610,796

2,640

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

328,700299,300

83,93680,145

2,077784930173

01.1%

91,75922,251

4,3128,009

50217,35713,62423,172

57,328

1213.3%

123,66530,885

5,2397,308

5344,795

20,76424,972

16034,583

13732.9%

53,77016.4%

29,40122,728

5,4981,174

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

191

appendix: global energy [r]evolution scenario

table 14.7: global: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.10: global: installed capacity GW

table 14.11: global: primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.9: global co2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.8: global: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

193156,6591,4513,474

99126

2,688211

3,334362

2682

93

2,207514127

1,230109219

8

1,493714

21,52314,581

7,1731,5784,7041,100

262,6884,2543,334

36226

43090

93

1,9251,904

017686

3901.8%

19.8%

207

2020

22,5077,587

7264,383

60213

1,647343

4,0102,255

386231267

58

3,237570

701,743

47741

65

1,7891,447

25,74315,741

8,157797

6,126649

131,6478,3554,0102,255

3861,084

296267

58

2,2432,279

12621,095

2,69810.5%

32.5%

2,583

2030

24,8726,874

1934,406

30310

678423

4,4254,3981,351

4881,172

151

4,252696

211,929

121,403

191

2,2112,041

29,12414,444

7,570215

6,335315

10678

14,0024,4254,3981,3511,826

6791,172

151

2,4282,457

30223,937

5,90020.3%

48.1%

5,320

2040

27,5245,101

293,575

855

168531

4,9186,2712,663

8303,010

338

5,392863

01,884

02,221

422

2,6602,731

32,91611,543

5,96529

5,45985

5168

21,2054,9186,2712,6632,7521,2523,010

338

2,5882,592

57027,166

9,27228.2%

64.4%

8,542

2050

30,7143,285

02,321

2130

6705,3487,7384,3491,0485,255

677

64021,006

01,880

02,858

657

2,9743,428

37,1168,5174,291

04,201

2130

28,5995,3487,7384,3493,5271,7055,255

677

2,7672,743

79230,814

12,76434.4%

77.1%

12,145

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalGasLigniteOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Distribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

16,3115,0891,5322,6311,047

332,768

1242,923

1032

5611

1,915438166

1,088113109

1

1,410505

18,22612,138

5,5271,6983,7191,160

332,7683,3212,923

1032

23458

11

1,5961,597

015,018

1060.6%

18.2%

0

2010

4,3911,160

2401,025

34951

35235

978164

2112

51

632154

43323

5160

2

467165

5,0233,3951,314

2831,348

40051

3521,276

978164

219514

51

1853.7%

25.4%

2020

5,7471,340

1201,284

23527

21356

1,178893269

338317

859169

21461

18177

13

543316

6,6063,6741,509

1411,745

25327

2132,7191,178

893269233

468317

1,17917.8%

41.2%

2030

7,0401,230

331,320

126198865

1,3001,622

92171

19944

1,085217

6544

4275

38

653431

8,1243,5001,447

391,865

1301989

4,5361,3001,622

921341108199

44

2,58831.8%

55.8%

2040

8,430959

61,155

47112281

1,4432,2201,799

120468

98

1,319280

0546

0411

82

764554

9,7493,0041,239

61,701

481122

6,7231,4432,2201,799

492203468

98

4,11742.2%

69.0%

2050

9,843651

0716

1460

991,5652,7332,911

152801194

1,526325

0557

0521124

837689

11,3692,269

9760

1,27314

60

9,1001,5652,7332,911

620276801194

5,83851.4%

80%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

3,690874257803354

65368

21878

592910

565141

54281

5632

0

439125

4,2542,8851,015

3111,084

41065

3681,001

87859

252

910

611.4%

23.5%

2010

524,782422,770122,826

16,613115,011168,321

29,33272,67112,001

1,3011,063

55,3722,934

913.8%7,651

2020

540,753409,286125,197

7,711128,798147,580

17,971113,288

14,4358,1198,978

71,71210,045

20721%

91,434

2030

525,939355,467104,040

2,136123,203126,088

7,397163,075

15,93015,83226,31583,20721,247

54430.9%

195,425

2040

503,437281,284

77,118260

100,995102,912

1,832220,321

17,70622,57650,00692,00336,811

1,21843.6%

291,424

2050

480,861209,962

51,4380

74,59683,927

0270,899

19,25327,85776,44194,77950,131

2,43756.1%

387,023

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

474,907383,120103,515

18,12499,741

161,739

30,20161,58410,521

372176

48,5941,921

212.9%

0

2010

10,6306,5611,6271,691

71438

1,756608217824106

12,3867,1691,8442,515

858

26,954126%4,5533,5266,332

11,992550

6,8943.9

2020

10,2316,980

7502,040

44120

1,668577106947

38

11,8997,557

8562,987

500

25,380119%4,4633,2135,891

11,382432

7,6523.3

2030

7,8715,512

2011,916

22617

1,595583

36967

8

9,4666,095

2372,883

251

20,98198%

3,8752,6515,2728,902

281

8,3002.5

2040

5,1733,683

291,390

5912

1,515604

0911

0

6,6884,287

292,301

71

15,58173%

2,9932,0044,3786,078

128

8,8031.8

2050

2,8952,079

0792

159

1,451622

0829

0

4,3462,701

01,622

24

10,58949%

2,0671,3333,4933,675

21

9,1691.15

2005

8,7654,9771,7251,273

74348

1,899621287826165

10,6645,5982,0122,099

956

24,351114%4,2923,4055,800

10,293561

6,5033.7

2010

6,4385,327

910113

88

11,0799,9711,032

76

127,87992,10134,125

815838

145,397107,399

36,067,928

1002

26%2,636

2020

8,1104,6802,011

784636

15,28411,115

3,560608

133,36487,37436,945

5,8373,208

156,757103,169

42,5166,6214,452

34%8,499

2030

9,8453,4412,8592,0451,499

19,20411,453

6,0011,750

133,33474,43437,42115,185

6,294

162,38289,32746,28117,231

9,543

45%19,448

2040

11,4611,6793,4263,7862,571

22,86510,764

8,2863,815

129,71756,22337,08025,79810,617

164,04368,66648,79129,58417,002

58%31,021

2050

11,555325

2,9845,1693,077

26,06910,257

9,9205,892

124,08236,58034,86036,69815,944

161,70547,16147,76441,86724,913

71%46,039

2005

5,9005,305

5840

11

10,1369,637

48911

120,21788,07431,978

165150

136,402103,015

33,050166171

24%0

table 14.12: global: final energy demandPJ/a

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- GL

OB

AL

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

192

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

appendix: oecd north america reference scenario

table 14.13: oecd north america: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.16: oecd north america: installed capacity GW

table 14.17: oecd north america: primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.15: oecd north america: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.14: oecd north america: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

5,2051,3621,112

767188

9935

55681

624

2910

36057

2233

2147

1

208153

5,5653,7511,4201,1141,000

2099

935879681

624

10230

10

641065

376394

04,795

66

1.2%

15.8%

2020

6,0841,6011,250

970148

61,001

112694225

2246

91

39665

2241

1868

2

217180

6,4814,3011,6661,2521,211

1666

1,0011,179

694225

22180

4891

641365

425450

55,600

248

3.8%

18.2%

2030

6,8702,0411,3191,075

1144

1,045146698324

325615

2

48086

0283

1691

4

267213

7,3504,9382,1271,3191,358

1304

1,0451,367

698324

32237

5915

2

641465

468502

96,372

358

4.9%

18.6%

2040

7,7722,6591,4041,155

903

1,074168704388

406420

4

553113

0313

11110

5

299255

8,3255,7492,7721,4041,468

1013

1,0741,502

704388

40278

6920

4

641565

515560

147,236

432

5.2%

18.0%

2050

8,7463,4401,4941,212

602

1,098176705415

456825

7

632145

0345

4130

9

329303

9,3786,7013,5841,4941,557

642

1,0981,579

705415

45306

7725

7

641665

562627

238,166

467

5.0%

16.8%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalGasLigniteOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricityFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

4,7651,2091,021

666192

12914

44664

190

2410

35355

2235

2140

0

204149

5,1183,4131,2641,023

901212

12914792664

190

8424

10

641065

348367

04,403

19

0.4%

15.5%

2010

1,151220180324

6021

1148

18928

2410

11226

167

712

0

7735

1,263905246181390

6621

114244189

282

20410

302.4%

19.3%

2020

1,322257202361

4813

12116

1909212

630

11325

165

616

0

7340

1,435977282202426

5413

121337190

921232

730

1057.3%

23.5%

2030

1,465333216390

368

12722

190114

18821

12930

074

519

1

8346

1,5941,093

364216464

418

127374190114

1840

921

1338.3%

23.5%

2040

1,613433230404

296

13025

192128

22932

14540

080

321

1

9253

1,7581,225

473230484

326

130403192128

224610

32

1528.7%

22.9%

2050

1,772560245416

204

13326

192136

2610

43

16450

086

225

2

10163

1,9361,382

609245502

214

133422192136

265111

43

1648.5%

21.8%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

1,071198168301

5826

1126

18790300

11424

171

711

0

7637

1,184855222169372

6626

112217187

90

17300

90.8%

18.3%

2010

123,563105,718

15,24410,89128,71150,872

10,2027,6432,452

22393

4,424450

16.1%

2020

133,975112,779

16,38510,72130,20555,467

10,92210,274

2,498810312

5,826824

47.6%

2030

144,339120,529

18,78111,36031,48958,899

11,40212,407

2,5131,166

5587,0191,144

78.5%

2040

154,364128,099

22,72511,65432,32661,394

11,71814,546

2,5341,397

8278,3731,400

149.4%

2050

164,342137,565

27,66911,95233,35464,590

11,98014,797

2,5381,4941,0757,9701,695

259.0%

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share

2005

115,88898,89114,11710,22626,25948,290

9,9687,0292,390

7058

3,886625

06.0%

2010

2,8951,1971,208

348135

7

12019

18812

3,0151,2171,209

436154

6,851119%

664852

2,3432,991

1

45914.9

2020

3,0651,3791,189

391101

5

10214

17710

3,1671,3931,190

468116

7,297126%

564959

2,6333,136

5

50014.6

2030

3,3501,5941,261

41676

3

12323

090

9

3,4721,6171,261

50689

7,838136%

5491,0172,8363,430

6

53314.7

2040

3,7381,9611,294

42160

2

15541

0107

7

3,8932,0031,294

52869

8,410146%

5401,0333,0003,829

7

55915.0

2050

4,1842,3991,327

41640

2

21175

0133

2

4,3952,4741,327

55044

9,135158%

5631,0283,2434,294

6

57715.8

2005

2,6561,0761,133

301137

9

16351

2101

9

2,8201,1271,135

402155

6,433111%

641768

2,2262,797

0

43614.7

2010

1212

000

687502175

9

23,25420,743

2,3647572

23,95321,258

2,5397581

11.3%

2020

4443

100

833578236

20

24,24721,244

2,518201284

25,12421,864

2,754202304

13.0%

2030

6360

310

1,099770295

34

25,81022,017

2,877391526

26,97322,846

3,175391560

15.3%

2040

7264

610

1,4091,021

34148

26,69522,169

3,241613672

28,17723,254

3,588614720

17.5%

2050

745913

10

1,8811,424

38177

27,55922,317

3,553824866

29,51523,800

3,947825943

19.4%

2005

00000

643488155

0

21,08018,909

2,0815635

21,72319,397

2,2355635

10.7%

table 14.18: oecd north america: final energy demandPJ/a 2010

86,28077,58233,11532,507

30449128

220

1.4%

17,4425,304

927553162

1,2251,9296,849

11,577

415.3%

27,02511,829

1,724115

1984

3,9839,757

751,125

5611.1%

6,1407.9%

8,6987,775

91210

2020

95,01485,71137,76936,515

56816367

7714

2.4%

16,4555,8131,119

582193784

1,7355,957

321,484

6817.6%

31,48713,978

2,421265

5884

4,54710,892

1691,407

14513.3%

7,9919.3%

9,3038,323

96910

2030

103,18793,22641,18239,316

791,096

667145

243.0%

16,5976,0601,136

685221610

1,7335,789

661,543

11118.5%

35,44716,209

2,935447105

644,948

11,412324

1,759283

15.3%

9,72810.4%

9,9618,9201,030

10

2040

110,769100,159

44,37541,573

1051,6391,017

21641

4.2%

16,8376,3261,117

828248422

1,7195,639

1121,654

13719.4%

38,94718,702

3,322623141

444,945

11,703501

2,052376

16.4%

11,52411.5%

10,6109,5091,090

10

2050

118,571107,316

47,46944,924

134976

1,369269

662.6%

17,4946,7701,1221,076

287308

1,7295,592

1501,679

19019.6%

42,35321,253

3,520849179

414,561

12,120674

2,373482

17.1%

11,90211.1%

11,25510,094

1,15010

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

80,22472,21831,31030,884

25355

4712

01.2%

16,0674,456

813465139

1,2181,9616,433

01,529

415.5%

24,84011,348

1,567147

14120

3,6428,659

56837

3110.1%

5,3577.4%

8,0067,147

84910

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- OE

CD

NO

RT

H A

ME

RIC

A

193

2010

83,74374,48332,46631,811

31499125

240

1.6%

15,3374,960

957660279750

1,5375,802

1601,424

4418.7%

26,68011,702

1,905294135324

3,7349,253

1271,194

5212.8%

6,8019.1%

9,2604,5264,268

466

2020

82,20174,00330,41927,176

642,404

585253190

8.7%

14,3325,1201,9321,411

847299905

4,684356

1,373185

32.7%

29,25212,051

4,4381,412

9910

2,52910,541

4712,061

18827.9%

15,57921.1%

8,1984,0163,765

417

2030

79,82672,15227,52021,887

893,8351,354

846355

17.0%

13,7195,0132,9312,0321,516

41480

3,708738

1,404304

50.2%

30,91312,615

7,3863,0972,572

221,3548,6942,1562,453

52248.8%

26,90937.3%

7,6743,7633,516

395

2040

73,20665,72722,29714,311

1004,6882,6562,107

54230.5%

13,1064,7933,7382,5572,213

6199

2,679951

1,381540

67.3%

30,32412,718

9,9424,2623,689

5800

6,0223,2712,396

85166.4%

36,20855.1%

7,4803,6703,424

386

2050

62,72155,45916,721

6,74679

5,1084,2714,004

51754.5%

12,3564,1923,9192,7492,503

4177

2,0411,1221,360

71177.8%

26,38312,15111,330

3,7693,259

1652

3,9643,2581,748

84077.5%

39,37571.0%

7,2623,5653,321

376

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

80,22472,21831,31030,884

25355

4712

01.2%

16,0674,456

813465139

1,2181,9616,433

01,529

415.5%

24,84011,348

1,567147

14120

3,6428,659

56837

3110.1%

5,3577.4%

8,0067,147

84910

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

table 14.19: oecd north america: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.22: oecd north america: installed capacity GW

table 14.23: oecd north america:primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.21: oecd north america: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.20: oecd north america: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

4,9901,271

979831168

8848

69690

784

4032

42152

1282

2260

3

215206

5,4113,6151,323

9801,113

1908

848948690

784

12943

32

641065

365383

04,663

831.5%

17.5%

134

2020

5,0821,090

4721,078

514

40880

794697137138115

19

71121

0482

16178

14

277434

5,7933,2141,111

4721,560

674

4082,172

794697137258152115

19

641365

385398

784,932

85314.7%

37.5%

668

2030

5,366961

86975

282

5383

8431,173

400333376

53

86850

4510

37834

320548

6,2342,508

96686

1,42628

253

3,673843

1,173400461367376

53

641465

403418140

5,273

162626.1%

58.9%

1,100

2040

5,680361

0752

517

84878

1,414720586752120

97910

3170

60457

353626

6,6591,437

3610

1,069517

5,215878

1,414720688643752120

641565

411438207

5,602

2,25433.9%

78.3%

1,644

2050

5,70019

0175

000

85902

1,5341,018

7141,078

175

1,05600

2470

73375

386670

6,756442

190

422000

6,315902

1,5341,018

818789

1,078175

641665

401438191

5,726

2,72740.4%

93.5%

2,461

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalGasLigniteOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

4,7651,2091,021

666192

12914

44664

190

2410

35355

2235

2140

0

204149

5,118341312641023

901212

12914792664

190

8424

10

641065

348367

04,403

190.4%

15.5%

0

2010

1,140205

158.9353

5319

103.59.8

19235.4

2.25.52.00.6

12523

179

715

1

7748

1,265899228160432

5919

104263192

352

25621

383.0%

20.8%

2020

1,412175

76.1435

161049

11.5217

284.577.219.534.1

5.5

17980

1234

413

8495

1,591848184

76558

201049

693217284

77522234

5

36723.1%

43.6%

2030

1,602157

14.1403

956

12.2230

413.5227.1

48.161.615.3

19410

1080

787

78116

1,796698158

14511

956

1,092230414227

90556215

65636.5%

60.8%

2040

1,75459

0322

22.5

112.3239

469.3409.7

84.8117.8

34.2

19900

700

11711

73126

1,953456

590

392231

1,496239469410130

96118

34

91346.8%

76.6%

2050

1,71830

57000

12.4246

504.5577.5103.3163.9

50.5

20800

520

14115

75132

1,926112

30

109000

1,814246504577153118164

51

1,13358.8%

94.2%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

1,071198168301

5826

1126

18790300

11424

171

711

0

7637

1,184855222169372

6626

112217187

90

17300

90.8%

18.3%

2010

119,660101,704

14,5369,595

31,60445,970

9,2478,7092,484

279365

4,827747

77.2%3,917

2020

111,06386,67811,395

4,04634,00937,228

4,44619,939

2,8582,5092,0739,7022,729

6817.9%22,934

2030

102,97468,313

9,201741

29,17229,200

57834,082

3,0354,2236,574

13,7586,302

19133.0%41,434

2040

92,41645,908

3,9110

22,11419,883

7646,432

3,1615,090

10,90416,22110,623

43250.2%62,037

2050

77,69726,617

1,1750

13,91111,531

051,079

3,2475,522

13,23015,90312,547

63065.7%86,736

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

115,88898,89114,11710,22626,25948,290

9,9687,0292,390

7058

3,886625

06.0%

2010

2,6911,132

1,064.2371

116.97

13218

1102

10

2,8231,1501,065

474134

6,452112%

540828

2,2932,791

0

45914.1

2020

1,869928

449.1454

34.93.3

16460

1508

2,034934449604

46

5,13189%410790

1,9611,969

0

50010.3

2030

1,243751

82.2389

18.71.6

14820

1460

1,391753

82535

21

3,80866%299613

1,5821,314

0

5337.1

2040

553266

02833.30.8

12110

1210

675267

0404

4

2,27239%202438

1,037595

0

5594.1

2050

7314

060

00

9700

970

17014

0157

0

1,05818%156316491

950

5771.8

2005

2,6561,0761,133

301137

9

16351

2101

9

2,8201,1271,135

402155

6,433111%

641768

2,2262,797

0

43614.7

2010

2110

1204645

848595226

27

21,31518,640

2,280287108

22,37319,235

2,626333180

14%

1,580

2020

1,1430

538332273

1,7911,022

644125

21,16816,918

2,959827464

24,10217,940

4,1411,159

862

26%

1,022

2030

2,6070

1,098886623

2,6341,0601,272

302

20,14512,845

3,3302,8941,076

25,38613,905

5,6993,7812,002

45%

1,586

2040

3,5560

1,3241,383

849

3,377928

1,937513

17,9388,6263,2814,2231,809

24,8729,5536,5415,6053,172

62%

3,305

2050

3,0090

9971,305

707

3,624765

2,182677

15,0315,9402,7314,3791,981

21,6646,7055,9105,6843,365

69%

7,850

2005

00000

643488155

0

21,08018,909

2,0815635

21,72319,397

2,2355635

11%

table 14.24: oecd north america: final energy demandPJ/a

appendix: oecd north america energy [r]evolution scenario

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- OE

CD

NO

RT

H A

ME

RIC

A

194

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

appendix: latin america reference scenario

table 14.25: latin america: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.28: latin america: installed capacity GW

table 14.29: latin america: primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.27: latin america: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.26: latin america: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

1,13224

9237

747

2725

72240300

5104000

05

1,137356

269

24174

727

754722

40

25300

661264

18442

0914

4

0.4%

66.3%

2020

1,5573614

4356036

436

91513

1700

3980

29020

039

1,596586

4414

46460

436

974915

131

38700

941790

23372

01,295

14

0.9%

61.0%

2030

1,9785623

64141

23448

1,09522

212

20

7313

055

050

073

2,051831

6923

69641

234

1,1861,095

222

5312

20

12322

118264

910

1,701

24

1.2%

57.8%

2040

2,510185

35857

352

3259

1,25031

317

30

9515

071

090

095

2,6051,200

20135

92835

232

1,3731,250

313

6817

30

15928

153266139

02,206

35

1.3%

52.7%

2050

3,158423

501,085

352

3071

1,39041

623

40

10014

075

011

0

0100

3,2581,683

43750

1,16035

230

1,5451,390

416

8223

40

20236

195264191

02,811

47

1.4%

47.4%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

90618

6128

878

1719

61900200

0000000

00

906248

186

12887

817

641619

00

19200

539

51147

280

734

0

0%

70.8%

2010

2795

1.2781810

3.94.6

1571.8

00.5

00

1001000

01

280113

51

791810

3.9164157

20

4.6000

1.80.7%

58.4%

2020

4036

2.0152

206

5.16.1

1995.20.71.00.1

0

9206000

09

412194

82

15820

65.1

212199

51

6.5100

5.91.4%

51.6%

2030

50910

3.1214

163

4.97.2

2389.01.31.80.4

0

1630

12010

016

525261

133

22516

34.9

259238

91

8.3200

10.32.0%

49.3%

2040

65737

4.9295

153

4.68.2

27211.9

2.32.70.5

0

2040

14020

020

677373

415

31015

34.6

299272

122

10310

14.22.1%

44.2%

2050

84694

7.1388

163

4.39.1

30215.5

4.13.50.5

0

2130

15020

021

867526

977

40216

34.3

337302

154

11.4310

19.62.3%

38.9%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

2134

0.8391711

2.43.8

1350.2

00.4

00

0000000

00

21372

41

391711

2.4139135

00

3.8000

0.20.1%

65.1%

2010

24,03116,860

1,048110

5,52610,176

2956,8762,599

142

4,158102

027.9%

2020

30,19621,510

1,245160

8,15911,946

3938,2943,294

467

4,718229

026.7%

2030

36,37426,199

1,507234

10,60113,857

3719,8033,942

7921

5,372389

026.2%

2040

43,85932,550

2,652332

13,28216,284

34910,961

4,500113

365,777

5350

24.3%

2050

52,26839,867

4,478448

15,95518,985

32712,074

5,004147

506,198

6750

22.5%

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share

2005

21,14314,730

89478

4,2469,511

1836,2302,229

12

3,90989

028.7%

2010

2192512

1165015

31020

2232712

11965

954144%

234128372219

0

4792.0

2020

2923418

19342

6

2160

140

3134018

20748

1,220184%

293181453292

0

5342.3

2030

3654926

25929

3

3410

024

0

3985826

28332

1,481223%

346224546365

0

5802.6

2040

551149

37339

242

3910

029

0

590159

37367

26

1,873282%

394266662551

0

6133.1

2050

810315

50421

232

3890

290

849324

50450

25

2,350354%

439310791810

0

6323.7

2005

17420

9675920

00000

17420

96779

827125%

189120344174

0

4501.8

2010

00000

2828

00

6,5134,0772,433

20

6,5414,1052,433

20

37.2%

2020

22000

176167

90

7,7655,2002,524

239

7,9435,3692,533

239

32.4%

2030

44000

274255

190

8,9616,2322,633

790

9,2386,4902,652

790

29.7%

2040

55000

308280

280

10,2177,2962,756

12153

10,5297,5812,784

12153

28.0%

2050

55000

308274

340

11,5568,4122,897

16231

11,8698,6902,931

16231

26.8%

2005

00000

0000

5,9113,5272,381

20

5,9113,5272,381

20

40.3%

table 14.30: latin america: final energy demandPJ/a 2010

18,72417,365

5,5955,017

192377

960

6.8%

6,5721,5551,031

280

4201,4761,455

01,639

040.6%

5,1981,7271,145

000

1,331512

21,626

053.4%

5,82631.1%

1,358917436

6

2020

23,33821,708

6,9336,185

137601

1060

8.8%

8,1682,2061,347

1760

4591,7451,759

01,811

1338.8%

6,6082,4471,493

008

1,841767

21,534

946.0%

6,81629.2%

1,6301,100

5237

2030

28,11126,210

8,4857,499

95880

1160

10.4%

9,7002,9091,682

2740

5002,0062,071

01,911

3037.4%

8,0253,2031,852

00

382,1431,074

71,538

2142.6%

7,92728.2%

1,9021,283

6108

2040

33,40931,23610,216

9,13665

1,00313

70

9.9%

11,3883,7881,996

3080

5372,2842,397

02,023

5135.7%

9,6314,1412,182

00

622,4511,385

121,544

3639.2%

8,85426.5%

2,1731,467

6979

2050

39,29536,85012,13510,948

421,127

1890

9.4%

13,2694,8422,296

3080

5712,5842,741

02,147

7734.1%

11,4465,2582,493

00

802,7741,707

161,557

5436.0%

9,77524.9%

2,4451,650

78410

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

16,70615,484

5,1314,598

232292

960

5.8%

5,6831,255

88800

3331,1011,348

01,647

044.6%

4,6701,377

974004

1,231492

21,563

054.4%

5,37332.2%

1,222825392

5

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- LA

TIN

AM

ER

ICA

195

2010

18,65717,288

5,5955,001

253326

1410

06.0%

6,5471,5551,094

13171

3661,1261,534

191,781

3545.8%

5,1461,7241,213

85

351,145

507128

1,58118

57.2%

6,28036.3%

1,369924439

6

2020

20,38418,894

5,7184,952

258459

4940

08.7%

7,2881,9831,629

517403318667

1,570220

1,91299

58.5%

5,8881,8631,531

230179

0883610270

1,890142

68.1%

8,77646.4%

1,4901,006

4786

2030

21,83320,242

5,8424,640

257747180158

1715.8%

7,7222,3292,053

592462130482

1,607374

2,049159

66.0%

6,6792,1061,856

464362

0706570479

2,083271

75.6%

11,06854.7%

1,5911,074

5107

2040

23,33621,637

5,9653,824

2501,205

638589

4830.8%

7,9782,6852,479

815682

29116

1,598400

2,139196

73.9%

7,6942,6062,407

626524

0367518890

2,280407

84.6%

14,24165.8%

1,6991,147

5457

2050

25,04923,229

6,0892,552

2311,8651,3551,282

8553.0%

8,1363,0152,8541,1161,010

664

1,248409

2,041237

80.5%

9,0053,3743,193

772698

0247385

1,2402,426

56290.2%

17,89777.0%

1,8201,228

5848

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

16,70615,484

5,1314,598

232292

960

5.8%

5,6831,255

88800

3331,1011,348

01,647

044.6%

4,6701,377

974004

1,231492

21,563

054.4%

5,37332.2%

1,222825392

5

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

table 14.31: latin america: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.34: latin america: installed capacity GW

table 14.35: latin america: primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.33: latin america: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.32: latin america: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

1,10720

4200

787

1840

73061400

240090

150

321

1,130317

204

20978

718

796730

61

55400

661264

191.027.0

0914

70.6%

70.4%

0

2020

1,21350

16520

21885

770115

148

102

12000

290

847

15105

1,333220

50

19420

218

1,095770115

14169

1510

2

771474

212.042.0

0.21,082

1319.8%

82.2%

213

2030

1,38712

0124

025

110785215

801535

4

19200

440

13512

35157

1,579182

120

168025

1,392785215

80245

2735

4

891685

219.075.0

71,282

29918.9%

88.1%

419

2040

1,75160

100000

155800470110

208010

26600

480

18533

48218

2,017155

60

148000

1,863800470110340

538010

10519

101234.0122.0

181,647

59029.2%

92.3%

559

2050

2,28010

91200

234822720160

25200

25

33500

460

22861

60275

2,615140

10

137200

2,475822720160462

86200

25

12522

121253.0183.0

322,151

90534.6%

94.6%

659

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

90618

6128

878

1719

61900200

0000000

00

906248

186

12887

817

641619

00

19200

539

51147

280

734

00%

70.8%

2010

2714

0.5661910

2.57.4

1592.70.50.6

00

6002040

15

277101

41

681910

2.5174159

31

11100

3.21.2%

62.6%

2020

31410

587

2.92.5

14.1167

46.910

1.23.20.6

270070

191

423

34175

10

6473

2.5264167

471033

331

57.516.9%

77.4%

2030

38920

410

2.90.7

16.6171

87.857.1

2.35.81.1

4100

110

282

833

43057

20

5203

0.7372171

885745

561

146.034.0%

86.6%

2040

50710

34000

21.5174

178.778.6

3.112.7

2.9

5500

110

376

1144

56247

10

46000

515174179

7959

913

3

260.146.3%

91.6%

2050

67200

33100

30179

273.8114.3

3.830.8

7.1

6700

110

4512

1355

73944

00

43100

695179274114

751631

7

395.253.5%

94.0%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

2134

0.83917

10.92.43.8

1350.2

00.4

00

0000000

00

21372

41

391711

2.4139135

00

3.8000

0.20.1%

65.1%

2010

23,71616,019

96548

5,3699,636

1917,5062,628

22150

4,505201

030.8%

302

2020

25,20113,995

7070

5,2718,018

19111,014

2,772414590

6,502729

742.4%4,944

2030

26,94712,695

5820

4,9327,181

5514,198

2,826774

1,2968,0491,239

1451.1%9,349

2040

29,36710,741

4250

4,6815,634

018,626

2,8801,6922,0359,8552,129

3661.4%14,366

2050

32,4848,570

3550

3,9864,229

023,915

2,9592,5923,050

11,9863,237

9071.1%19,582

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

21,14314,730

89478

4,2469,511

1836,2302,229

12

3,90989

028.7%

2010

19221

5.498

53.215

50050

19821

5104

68

894135%

208117375193

0

4791.9

2020

9540

7313.9

3

1500

150

10940

8817

749113%

173106371

981

5341.4

2030

6310

050

02.5

2100

210

8310

071

2

65599%143

93349

701

5801.1

2040

4550

4000

2200

220

6750

620

51377%105

65290

530

6130.8

2050

3710

351.4

0

2000

200

5810

561

36956%

7948

19745

0

6320.6

2005

17420

9675920

00000

17420

96779

827125%

189120344174

0

4501.8

2010

81501

1335080

3

6,4093,7002,508

14853

6,5493,7522,594

14856

43%

-9

2020

15117

1051415

608134415

59

6,7943,1722,862

490269

7,5523,3233,383

504343

56%

390

2030

18913

1292819

883179603101

7,2132,7373,140

853482

8,2852,9293,872

882602

65%

953

2040

3006

1896045

1,165177711277

7,4242,0443,3861,291

703

8,8882,2274,2861,3511,025

75%

1,641

2050

4210

232105

84

1,500161813526

7,5431,4593,4441,649

991

9,4641,6194,4891,7541,602

83%

2405

2005

00000

0000

5,9113,5272,381

20

5,9113,5272,381

20

40.3%

table 14.36: latin america: final energy demandPJ/a

appendix: latin america energy [r]evolution scenario

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- LA

TIN

AM

ER

ICA

196

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

appendix: oecd europe reference scenario

table 14.37: oecd europe: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.40: oecd europe: installed capacity GW

table 14.41: oecd europe: primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.39: oecd europe: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.38: oecd europe: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

3,037513239535

762

94535

535142

5721

705184

65324

4785

1

498207

3,7421,985

697304859123

2945812535142

5120

821

37682

357255302

03,204

1483.9%

21.7%

2020

3,529597205742

491

79652

607432

2213

94

759135

59364

47153

1

534225

4,2882,198

731264

1,10696

1796

1,293607432

22205

1494

445131422283342

03,685

45810.7%

30.2%

2030

3,973851192

1,00390

57457

648556

371621

9

832157

60391

47175

2

604228

4,8052,7101,008

2521,394

560

5741,521

648556

37232

1821

9

486154462294362

04,174

60212.5%

31.6%

2040

4,3581,112

1891,135

40

47560

650625

47192814

860170

59398

46184

2

625235

5,2183,1141,282

2481,533

500

4751,629

650625

47244

212814

521166494293367

04,585

68613.1%

31.2%

2050

4,7421,433

1851,210

10

43062

650645

54223118

877163

58410

20224

2

641236

5,6183,4801,597

2431,620

210

4301,708

650645

54286

243118

553172524297366

04,983

71712.8%

30.4%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

2,853456274463

824

98129

48671

2601

628145

81295

4858

1

443185

3,4811,848

601355757131

4981653486

712

87701

34865

330244298

02,957

732.1%

18.7%

2010

709102

47.4123

452.3

1266

18764

4.81.00.70.2

1734114731825

0

12448

882467143

62196

642

125.8289187

645

30.9110

69.07.8%

32.8%

2020

876118

40.6160

410.9

106.17.8

212162.9

19.11.93.01.8

1823013811642

0

13250

1,058501149

54241

571

106.1451212163

1949.3

232

183.817.4%

42.6%

2030

953169

38.1204

80.3

76.58.2

227178.2

32.22.36.53.3

1853513851635

0

13649

1,138569204

51289

240

76.5493227178

3243.3

363

213.718.8%

43.3%

2040

1,035220

37.5218

40.1

63.38.3

227200.3

40.92.78.04.5

1863813861435

0

13848

1,221631259

51303

180

63.3527227200

4143.1

385

245.720.1%

43.2%

2050

1,109284

36.7220

10.1

61.48.3

227206.7

47.03.17.85.1

185361388

642

0

13847

1,294685320

49308

70

61.4548227207

4750.5

385

258.820%

42.3%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

66690

54.3110

433.7

1314.7

18442.1

1.50.9

00.3

1593318682217

0

11247

825443123

72179

654

130.5251184

422

22100

445.3%

30.4%

2010

82,76264,68510,715

2,93221,03030,008

10,3117,7661,926

511134

4,968227

29.4%

2020

83,79564,214

9,9022,508

22,87328,930

8,68510,896

2,1851,555

4036,284

46814

13.0%

2030

86,89668,31811,490

2,20225,96228,664

6,26312,315

2,3332,002

7546,584

64232

14.2%

2040

88,95370,81912,635

2,24227,35428,587

5,18312,952

2,3402,2501,0966,443

82350

14.6%

2050

90,28471,69813,548

2,05027,96528,134

4,69213,894

2,3402,3221,2796,9171,036

6515.4%

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share

2005

81,48264,21510,612

3,41919,77330,411

10,6996,5681,749

25550

4,152360

28.1%

2010

1,028471267235

532.1

417162

59150

46

1,445633325386101

4,085100%

661786

1,1691,329

141

5477.5

2020

1,159552237335

330.8

3239241

15535

1,482644278490

69

4,00498%591749

1,1901,374

100

5617.1

2030

1,306695204402

60.3

369121

41180

28

1,676815244582

34

4,283104%

604771

1,2391,579

89

5687.5

2040

1,388798183403

30.1

444152

66200

27

1,832950249603

29

4,477109%

597786

1,2731,740

81

5687.9

2050

1,452906164381

10

426150

63202

11

1,8781,055

228583

12

4,553111%

545812

1,2981,808

90

5638.1

2005

925391282187

623.4

495156

98146

96

1,421547380332162

4,06299%716807

1,1291,260

149

5367.6

2010

1,9521,532

4100

10

2,4282,040

3827

20,60518,341

2,059109

96

24,98521,913

2,850109113

12.3%

2020

1,3981,094

2940

10

2,8152138

66412

19,82717,264

2,030292241

24,03920,496

2,988292263

14.7%

2030

1,273995267

010

3,1622,524

62414

21,29518,140

2,239545370

25,73021,659

3,131546394

15.8%

2040

1,171914246

111

3,2962,782

49915

22,32818,593

2,401825508

26,79422,289

3,146826533

16.8%

2050

1,3101,021

2751

12

3,2172,631

57115

23,21918,873

2,700972674

27,74622,526

3,546973702

18.8%

2005

2,1791,662

5060

10

2,2501,981

25810

20,31418,456

1,7234490

24,74322,100

2,48845

111

10.7%

table 14.42: oecd europe: final energy demandPJ/a 2010

60,53055,62416,86016,125

121295319

690

2.2%

15,8934,6991,0201,825

3161,0772,2185,059

71,006

314.8%

22,8726,5151,4142,299

454216

4,4337,657

1021,549

10015.8%

6,33410.5%

4,9064,276

58446

2020

62,54457,17217,98316,114

510940419126

05.9%

15,5505,1731,5601,868

389778

1,9444,854

5917

1018.5%

23,6397,6732,3152,089

540138

4,0517,635

2861,517

25020.8%

8,85614.2%

5,3734,683

63951

2030

67,17161,52019,01416,481

9141,091

528167

06.6%

16,5725,5971,7712,012

382852

1,8575,262

6968

1919.0%

25,9348,9022,8172,172

48956

3,9908,262

5401,630

38122.6%

10,26115.3%

5,6514,925

67253

2040

70,37464,49519,68916,745

1,1871,091

665208

06.6%

16,9405,9031,8431,994

330768

1,7875,466

6978

3818.9%

27,8669,9373,1022,227

40510

3,8228,824

8191,718

51023.5%

11,04715.7%

5,8795,124

69955

2050

73,19667,11420,26916,967

1,3531,083

867263

06.6%

17,1136,1711,8762,010

425551

1,5685,571

171,138

8620.7%

29,73210,901

3,3132,272

41318

3,6669,484

9551,796

64023.9%

12,00616.4%

6,0825,302

72457

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

58,60153,77316,08015,650

20132278

520

1.1%

15,3804,382

8221,877

2941,3552,2504,778

5730

212.0%

22,3135,9861,1222,287

452559

4,3937,520

391,442

8814.1%

5,1818.8%

4,8284,208

57446

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- OE

CD

EU

RO

PE

197

2010

59,68754,78116,86015,747

120669324

760

4.4%

15,3744,6411,0882,124

506255

2,4314,450

451,242

18519.9%

22,5476,3541,4902,355

561415

4,3646,919

721,939

13018.6%

8,00313.4%

4,9064,276

58446

2020

54,20648,83314,37712,217

4001,201

465193

9510%

13,6364,4631,8552,234

803113

1,4753,498

2211,338

29433.1%

20,8216,1912,5732,701

97176

3,0675,949

3292,195

31230.6%

12,32522.7%

5,3734,683

63951

2030

49,55343,90211,770

9,136283

1,409780458162

16.7%

12,4304,1402,4312,4101,190

8694

2,968721

1,069422

46.9%

19,7026,1173,5932,8141,390

611,7895,1131,4931,871

44444.6%

16,58433.5%

5,6514,925

67253

2040

46,63040,751

9,7795,882

1261,7551,7631,367

25233.9%

12,0383,9133,0352,4901,748

39270

2,758983885700

61.1%

18,9345,8214,5153,0272,125

19965

4,6912,3261,510

57658.4%

21,72046.6%

5,8795,124

69955

2050

45,31439,231

8,6933,529

521,8103,0432,610

25953.4%

11,9083,8793,3272,6072,263

770

2,5961,175

709865

70%

18,6305,7484,9303,2712,839

16448

4,3382,9271,193

68867.5%

25,55956.4%

6,0825,302

72457

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

58,60153,77316,08015,650

20132278

520

1.1%

15,3804,382

8221,877

2941,3552,2504,778

5730

212.0%

22,3135,9861,1222,287

452559

4,3937,520

391,442

8814.1%

5,1818.8%

4,8284,208

57446

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

table 14.43: oecd europe: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.46: oecd europe: installed capacity GW

table 14.47: oecd europe: primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.45: oecd europe: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.44: oecd europe: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

2,960444230537

702

92540

498194

11621

712168

49340

46106

3

487225

3,6721,886

612279877116

2925861498194

11146

921

37682

357251.0296.0

03,144

2065.6%

23.4%

60

2020

2,767302101630

341

42045

513570110

1126

3

832113

26460

16209

9

516316

3,5991,683

415127

109050

1420

1,496513570110254

2026

3

445138384

241.0291.0

383,089

68319.0%

41.6%

596

2030

2,539104

33565

120

15557

517793215

205413

85242

5475

8298

25

503349

3,3911,244

14638

104020

0155

1,991517793215355

455413

486292255220

272.064

3,066

1,02130.1%

58.7%

1,108

2040

2,3583415

23300

2270

520964330

459332

85530

4140

37860

475380

3,213699

3715

64700

222,492

520964330448105

9332

660649120

206.0257.0

963,194

1,32641.3%

77.6%

1,391

2050

2,43910

0125

000

80520

1040410

75125

54

81300

3280

40777

408405

3,252463

100

453000

2,789520

1040410487152125

54

910906

78210

258.096

3,520

1,50446.3%

85.8%

1,463

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

2,853456274463

824

98129

48671

2601

628145

81295

4858

1

443185

3,4811,848

601355757131

4981653486

712

87701

34865

330244298

02,957

732.1%

18.7%

2010

70588

45.6124

422.3

123.26.3

17487.510.5

0.90.70.3

1783811772131

1

12652

883447126

56200

632

123.2312174

871037

210

98.211.1%

35.4%

2020

8106020

13628

0.956.0

6.8179

214.995.7

1.68.71.5

19525

6102

754

2

12670

1,005385

8526

23835

156.0564179215

9661

391

312.131.1%

56.1%

2030

82821

6.5115

110.3

20.78.2

181254.2187.0

2.916.6

4.8

18391

1033

615

10974

1,011270

308

21814

020.7720181254187

698

175

446.044.1%

71.2%

2040

8887

3.045

00.12.99.7

182309.0287.0

6.426.610.3

17310

880

7312

9777

1,062143

73

13300

2.9915182309287

82182710

606.357.1%

86.2%

2050

96420

230

0.10

10.7182

333.3356.5

10.731.315.4

16200

690

7815

8181

1,12693

20

91000

1,033182333357

88263115

705.362.6%

91.7%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

66690

54.3110

433.7

130.54.7

18442.1

1.50.9

00.3

1593318682217

0

11247

825443123

72179

654

130.5251184

422

22.0100

43.95.3%

30.4%

2010

81,43261,498

9,2192,711

19,90429,664

10,0939,8421,793

698207

6,611530

212.0%1,289

2020

69,14349,681

5,9871,216

19,73322,746

4,58314,879

1,8472,0521,1798,6521,137

1221.2%14,094

2030

58,89237,644

2,745346

17,38017,173

1,69119,557

1,8612,8553,6529,0122,130

4733.3%26,776

2040

52,20227,196

1,443131

13,16812,454

24024,767

1,8723,4705,9619,2594,090

11549.5%35,096

2050

48,91821,000

1,1450

10,4949,361

027,917

1,8723,7447,8508,9865,271

19459.6%38,617

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

81,48264,21510,612

3,41919,77330,411

10,6996,5681,749

25550

4,152360

28.1%

2010

952408

256.7236

48.52.1

391147

44158

42

1,343555301394

92

3,83794%563757

1,1421,230

145

5477.0

2020

705280

117.0285

23.00.8

3027518

19811

1,007355135482

35

2,89571%419574903900

99

5615.2

2030

35585

35.02267.90.3

25832

3217

5

612118

38444

13

1,99049%311429675516

59

5683.5

2040

12224

14.683

00.1

20330

2000

3252715

2830

1,28931%254339432246

19

5682.3

2050

4560

3900

15100

1510

19660

1900

88422%223280258122

0

5631.6

2005

925391282187

623.4

495156

98146

96

1,421547380332162

4,06299%716807

1,1291,260

149

5367.6

2010

2,1911,601

5264420

2,4941,993

47130

19,66916,652

2,564117337

24,35320,246

3,561160386

17%

632

2020

1,9941,167

578140110

3,1452,189

88077

16,74512,583

2,946550666

21,88415,939

4,404689852

27%

2,155

2030

2,046798552471225

3,3832,0751,084

223

15,1409,4272,5342,213

966

20,56912,300

4,1712,6841,415

40%

5,161

2040

2,454294614

1,129417

3,2671,6301,094

543

14,6797,7932,1333,3091,444

20,4009,7173,8414,4382,404

52%

6,394

2050

3,0880

7101,822

556

2,9941,1921,106

696

14,3126,7011,7504,1021,758

20,3947,8933,5675,9243,010

61%

7,352

2005

2,1791,662

5060

10

2,2501,981

25810

20,31418,456

1,7234490

24,74322,100

2,48845

111

10.7%

table 14.48: oecd europe: final energy demandPJ/a

appendix: oecd europe energy [r]evolution scenario

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- OE

CD

EU

RO

PE

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

198

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

appendix: africa reference scenario

table 14.49: africa: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.52: africa: installed capacity GW

table 14.53: africa: primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.51: africa: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.50: africa: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

681280

0220

521

114

10730220

2100100

02

683554281

0220

531

11118107

305220

377

28100

510

541

30.5%

17.2%

2020

986316

0413

411

1523

15991540

15802320

015

1,001785325

0414

441

15202159

91

25540

541054

13578

0788

100.9%

20.2%

2030

1327374

0596

362

1541

23216

2960

3523

04450

035

1,3621,036

3960

59939

215

311232

162

46960

751475

154114

01,095

181.3%

22.8%

2040

1739531

0758

312

1549

30523

313

80

5538

06380

055

1,7941,369

5700

76434

215

410305

233

5713

80

10118

100163159

01,473

271.5%

22.9%

2050

2264849

0871

282

1557

37931

617

80

7556

080

110

075

2,3391,814

9050

87828

215

510379

316

6917

80

13524

134166210

01,964

371.6%

21.8%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

564252

0149

581

111

9110110

0000000

00

564459252

0149

581

119491

101110

316

316344

0457

10.1%

16.6%

2010

14747

05020

1.41.60.624

1.40.20.20.8

0

0000000

00

148119

470

5020

11.62824

10

0.6010

1.61.1%

18.6%

2020

21455

09020

1.92.23.136

3.60.40.71.3

0

4200100

04

218170

570

9021

22.24636

40

3.5110

4.01.8%

21.0%

2030

29065

0135

182.32.25.553

6.50.81.21.0

0

8601110

08

299227

710

13619

22.26953

71

6.6110

7.32.5%

23.2%

2040

37593

0172

162.72.26.670

8.91.61.71.1

0

1310

01120

013

388295102

0173

173

2.29170

92

8.3210

10.52.7%

23.5%

2050

480149

0198

153.32.27.887

11.73.22.31.1

0

1814

02020

018

497381163

0199

153

2.2115

8712

310

210

14.83.0%

23.1%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

12040

03719

1.31.60.121

0.40

0.10.2

0

0000000

00

1209740

03719

11.62121

00

0.1000

0.40.3%

17.9%

2010

28,04014,566

4,5860

3,8576,123

12313,351

38311

812,917

320

47.5%

2020

33,71218,409

5,0140

5,7527,643

16415,139

5713128

14,394115

044.9%

2030

39,76722,354

5,5140

7,4199,422

16417,249

8355854

16,116186

043.3%

2040

46,17727,275

6,7800

9,07311,422

16418,738

1,0998481

17,214260

040.5%

2050

53,28633,088

9,2070

10,18413,697

16420,034

1,363111110

18,118333

037.5%

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share

2005

25,24312,687

4,1980

3,0245,465

12312,433

32732

12,06932

049.3%

2010

404255

0109

355

11001

406256

0110

41

890124%

129125231404

0

10310.9

2020

495280

0181

295

107012

505287

0182

36

1,104154%

153142314495

0

12700.9

2030

585314

0240

265

2017

022

606331

0242

33

1,330185%

171157418585

0

15170.9

2040

748419

0300

236

3026

021

777445

0302

30

1,646229%

185171542748

0

17640.9

2050

997632

0338

226

4037

030

1,037668

0341

28

2,064287%

197185685997

0

19971.0

2005

355230

08139

5

00000

355230

08144

780109%

112113200355

0

9220.8

2010

00000

1110

10

10,4842,7787,693

013

10,4952,7887,695

013

73.4%

2020

00000

6858

90

11,4553,1478,240

1157

11,5233,2058,249

1157

72.2%

2030

00000

131112

200

12,4363,4138,913

2585

12,5683,5258,933

2585

72.0%

2040

00000

178152

270

13,4123,6569,601

40113

13,5903,8089,628

40113

72.0%

2050

00000

231196

350

14,2223,843

10,18157

141

14,4534,039

10,21557

141

72.1%

2005

00000

0000

9,7692,4747,296

00

9,7692,4747,296

00

74.7%

table 14.54: africa: final energy demandPJ/a 2010

20,66220,000

3,2543,149

761

2850

0.2%

3,720824142

110

478619657

01,131

034.2%

13,0261,096

18900

2391,213

2250

10,24013

80.2%

11,72056.7%

662342255

65

2020

24,48623,699

4,4424,289

922734

70

0.8%

4,3701,097

22168

0540676761

31,225

033.2%

14,8871,708

34400

2581,371

2789

11,20757

78.0%

13,09953.5%

787406303

77

2030

28,84827,921

5,9185,719

1045738

90

1.1%

4,9091,375

314131

0539697862

61,299

033.0%

17,0942,528

57700

2741,486

35819

12,34385

76.2%

14,70951.0%

927478357

91

2040

33,36832,296

7,7057,440

116935713

01.4%

5,4331,677

384178

0541704945

91,378

032.6%

19,1573,569

81600

2931,595

43831

13,117113

73.5%

15,95547.8%

1,073554413105

2050

38,32937,096

9,7579,415

128146

6815

01.6%

5,9101,998

435231

0539700981

121,449

032.1%

21,4295,0041,091

00

3091,700

51845

13,712141

69.9%

17,04744.5%

1,233637475121

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

18,64718,073

2,8122,722

650

2440

0.1%

3,345750124

00

408556587

01,043

034.9%

11,916872145

00

2091,107

1950

9,5320

81.2%

10,84958.2%

575311204

59

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- AF

RIC

A

199

2010

20,66520,003

3,2543,149

761

2850

0.2%

3,720824143

110

478619658

01,131

034.2%

13,0291,099

19000

2391,212

2260

10,24013

80.2%

11,72356.7%

662342255

65

2020

22,92422,174

3,7593,626

81134010

00.6%

3,933995251170

15446485673

571,084

2336.4%

14,4821,505

38000

2821,025

603367

10,66733

79.0%

12,90056.3%

750387289

74

2030

25,26224,412

4,2654,093

78385622

01.4%

4,0161,115

439418

32377322631126966

6340.4%

16,1321,956

77000

305961926859

11,07749

79.1%

14,43957.2%

850439327

84

2040

27,35926,409

4,7704,518

7476

10360

02.9%

4,1111,229

716573

34323187616199894

9047.0%

17,5272,5731,499

00

327900

1,1261,650

10,89359

80.5%

16,17059.1%

950491366

93

2050

29,33628,286

5,2764,914

66130164121

04.8%

4,0711,337

981664

36271

82565254790109

53.3%

18,9393,3342,446

00

353825

1,2842,531

10,54468

82.3%

18,01061.4%

1,050542405103

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

18,64718,073

2,8122,722

650

2440

0.1%

3,345750124

00

408556587

01,043

034.9%

11,916872145

00

2091,107

1950

9,5320

81.2%

10,84958.2%

575311204

59

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

appendix: africa energy [r]evolution scenario

table 14.55: africa: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.58: africa: installed capacity GW

table 14.59: africa: primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.57: africa: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.56: africa: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

682280

0220

521

114

10731220

2100100

02

684554281

0220

531

11118107

315220

379

28100.2

51.00

542

40.6%

17.3%

0

2020

880315

0293

4018

17130

2515

430

2

3416

010

053

430

914675331

0303

4018

231130

251522

730

2

481967

113.875.8

0706

424.6%

25.3%

83

2030

1,050316

0286

2020

16150

51110

490

6

9544

027

01410

1085

1,146694360

0313

2020

451150

51110

301590

6

5929

123123.7

89.60

868

16714.6%

39.4%

227

2040

1,496287

0281

1020

18170

82210

7420

10

14262

042

02216

17125

1,639684349

0323

1020

955170

82210

4023

42010

7344

390132.7104.3

01,085

30218.4%

58.3%

389

2050

1,907184

0242

520

21195133350

11750

15

16970

051

02721

19150

2,076553253

0292

520

1,523195133350

4832

75015

9070

562140.8119.9

01,343

49824.0%

73.4%

620

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

564252

0149

581

111

9110110

0000000

00

564459252

0149

581

119491

101110

316

316344

0457

10.1%

16.6%

0

2010

14847

05020

1.41.60.624

1.40.50.21.0

0

0000000

00

148119

470

5020

11.62824

101010

1.81.2%

18.8%

2020

20155

06419

1.91.22.330

10.17.60.59.70.6

8402011

17

210146

590

6619

21.2623010

831

101

18.38.7%

29.7%

2030

26155

06510

2.30

2.234

20.755.0

0.614.3

1.7

2311

06032

319

283150

660

7110

20

134342155

53

142

77.427.3%

47.2%

2040

36050

064

52.7

02.539

31.2105.0

0.957.5

2.9

3316

010

043

628

394147

660

74530

2463931

10574

583

139.035.3%

62.6%

2050

47232

055

33.3

02.845

50.6175.0

1.51004.3

3918

012

054

633

511123

500

67330

3884551

17586

1004

229.945.0%

76.0%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

12040

03719

1.31.60.121

0.40

0.10.2

0

0000000

00

1209740

03719

11.62121

00

0.1000

0.40.3%

17.9%

2010

28,04514,568

4,5880

3,8596,121

12313,354

3831110

12,91732

047.6%

15

2020

31,17016,238

4,9960

4,9346,308

8714,845

46889

58713,488

2057

47.6%2,646

2030

33,48516,713

5,0270

5,2016,484

016,772

540183

1,70413,830

49422

49.9%6,584

2040

36,40516,902

4,6880

5,5286,685

019,504

612295

4,11813,710

73336

52.4%11,057

2050

38,34716,055

3,7490

5,3846,923

022,292

702479

6,74413,382

93054

56.4%16,743

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

25,24312,687

4,1980

3,0245,465

12312,433

32732

12,06932

049.3%

2010

405255

0109

35.45

11001

406256

0110

41

890124%

129125231405

0

10310.9

2020

440279

0129

27.85

1913

050

459292

0134

33

977136%

132136266443

0

12700.8

2030

401266

0115

14.25

4532

012

0

446298

0128

20

991138%

134152299406

0

15170.7

2040

350226

01117.5

6

6243

019

0

412269

0130

13

980137%

130161330360

0

17640.6

2050

240137

094

3.96

6846

022

0

309183

0116

10

895125%

121166358251

0

19970.4

2005

355230

08139

5

00000

355230

08144

780109%

112113200355

0

9220.8

2010

00000

1110

10

10,4842,7787,693

013

10,4952,7887,695

013

73%

0

2020

00000

170121

2227

11,0972,8387,779

42556

11,2662,9587,801

42583

74%

256

2030

00000

418275

5192

11,7712,8337,842

984111

12,1893,1087,894

984203

74%

378

2040

00000

574358

69146

12,5652,7907,7781,850

148

13,1393,1487,8471,850

294

76%

451

2050

00000

665393

83189

13,2382,7017,5762,784

177

13,9023,0947,6582,784

366

78%

551

2005

00000

0000

9,7692,4747,296

00

9,7692,4747,296

00

74.7%

table 14.60: africa: final energy demandPJ/a

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- AF

RIC

A

200

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

appendix: middle east reference scenario

table 14.61: middle east: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.64: middle east: installed capacity GW

table 14.65: middle east: primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.63: middle east: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.62: middle east: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

78842

0448265

302

2820000

1000100

01

789758

420

448265

30

3228

202000

616

9076

0624

20.2%

4.0%

2020

1,14763

0723301

374

3850020

7003310

07

1,1541,096

630

726304

37

5138

505020

928

120113

0922

60.5%

4.4%

2030

1,50780

01,026

321379

4510

0060

15108520

015

1,5221,444

810

1,033327

37

714510

010

060

113

11141150

01,231

100.7%

4.7%

2040

1,925179

11,277

37237

115215

0090

2520

13830

025

1,9501,853

1811

1,290379

37

905215

014

090

155

14156193

01,601

150.8%

4.6%

2050

2,402364

11,451

47337

145819

10

120

3020

15940

030

2,4322,317

3661

1,466482

37

1085819

118

012

0

187

18180239

02,015

200.8%

4.5%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen consumptionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

64035

0343238

200

2100000

0000000

00

640619

350

343238

20

2121

000000

514

8257

0501

00%

3.3%

2010

24970

12992

60

0.213

0.70.1

00.1

0

0000000

00

249234

70

12992

60

1513

10

0.2000

0.80.3%

5.9%

2020

36410

0212113

61.00.718

2.20.2

00.8

0

2001100

02

365343

100

212114

61.02118

20

0.8010

2.30.6%

5.9%

2030

48413

0.1305132

61.01.420

4.10.2

00.9

0

3002100

03

488460

130

307133

61.02720

40

1.7010

4.20.9%

5.4%

2040

74432

0.1505169

61.01.822

5.60.2

01.3

0

5003210

05

749717

330

507170

61.03122

60

2.4010

5.80.8%

4.2%

2050

1,28473

0.1854315

61.02.323

7.30.3

01.9

0

6003210

06

12901,253

730

857317

61.03623

70

3.1020

7.60.6%

2.8%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

20060

9879

600

1000000

0000000

00

200190

60

9879

60

1010

000000

00%

5.2%

2010

25,56325,341

4202

11,01613,902

0222101

53382

00

0.9%

2020

34,37033,917

6013

16,15017,163

81372138

1952

15211

01.1%

2030

41,51840,874

7554

20,91419,202

79565162

3685

24537

01.4%

2040

48,19347,383

1,5745

24,61321,191

78732186

53116303

740

1.6%

2050

54,98253,974

3,0307

27,32323,614

76931210

69149357145

01.7%

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share

2005

21,41621,262

3702

9,07511,815

0154

760

3344

00

0.7%

2010

56834

0289238

7

10001

56935

0289245

1,390191%

246200376568

0

2076.7

2020

76150

0433271

7

50022

76651

0435280

1,833253%

351259462761

0

2497.4

2030

93363

0574289

7

81044

94264

0578299

2,180300%

434308503933

0

2867.6

2040

1,122137

1660319

7

132065

1,135138

1666330

2,533349%

521357533

1,1220

3197.9

2050

1,361271

1697387

7

131075

1,375272

1703399

2,929403%

606404558

1,3610

3478.4

2005

48130

0231214

6

00000

48130

0231220

1,173162%

192179321481

0

1886.2

2010

00000

7700

5,5145,442

4032

0

5,5215,449

4032

0

1.3%

2020

00000

4238

40

7,5427,434

464220

7,5847,473

494220

1.5%

2030

11000

7869

90

9,2099,028

536365

9,2889,098

626365

2.0%

2040

11000

1159817

0

10,97410,700

6083

131

11,09110,800

7783

131

2.6%

2050

11000

125103

220

12,81412,387

67104256

12,94012,491

89104256

3.5%

2005

00000

0000

4,6434,575

3533

0

4,6434,575

3533

0

1.5%

table 14.66: middle east: final energy demandPJ/a 2010

16,66714,329

5,2265,213

130000

0%

4,294477

1970

171,6672,115

010

00.7%

4,8091,767

71000

1,8211,147

3241

03.0%

1721.0%

2,3381,370

9680

2020

22,25519,171

6,4266,407

170100

0%

6,218730

3242

023

2,1813,227

014

30.8%

6,5272,589

115001

2,3491,494

4243

93.2%

2581.2%

3,0841,8071,277

0

2030

26,67922,985

7,0016,977

202300

0%

7,790976

4678

038

2,6114,056

01716

1.0%

8,1933,454

161002

2,6921,913

634821

3.6%

3731.4%

3,6942,1651,529

0

2040

31,22626,905

7,4147,381

223700

0.1%

9,4751,272

59115

053

3,0174,961

02037

1.2%

10,0164,486

206005

3,0232,330

835237

3.8%

4981.6%

4,3212,5321,788

0

2050

35,90530,944

7,7697,725

257

1210

0.1%

11,2421,617

72125

070

3,3925,926

02388

1.6%

11,9335,623

250005

3,3432,746

1045656

3.9%

6581.8%

4,9612,9082,054

0

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

13,93212,011

4,4604,449

110000

0%

3,324363

1200

201,3951,539

080

0.6%

4,2261,442

48001

1,4261,288

3336

02.8%

1381.0%

1,9221,126

7950

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- MID

DL

E E

AS

T

201

2010

16,60414,266

5,2265,182

271

1610

0%

4,266466

18171711

1,5062,187

322028

2.7%

4,7741,759

69000

1,4961,395

594817

4.0%

3102.2%

2,3381,370

9680

2020

19,07316,437

5,0044,842

51436010

81.1%

5,604671118235235

01,0703,262

20150

11512.8%

5,8291,964

3451616

01,2672,060

3766879

15.2%

1,65710.1%

2,6361,5451,091

0

2030

20,40117,575

4,6864,305

72132160

7817

4.7%

6,198815398368368

0740

3,294663108210

28.2%

6,6902,2791,112

3737

0933

2,388774

81200

32.9%

4,16923.7%

2,8261,6561,170

0

2040

21,64418,648

4,3323,611

88180431344

2112.5%

6,637972775599599

0591

2,6861,312

168308

47.7%

7,6802,8382,262

170170

0753

1,7051,786

102325

60.5%

8,35044.8%

2,9961,7561,240

0

2050

22,71919,564

3,9902,576

100180

1,1091,060

2531.7%

6,7511,1431,093

819819

0368

1,2662,426

228500

75.0%

8,8233,5873,430

247247

0306595

3,451145491

88.0%

14,09472.0%

3,1551,8491,306

0

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

13,93212,011

4,4604,449

110000

0%

3,324363

1200

201,3951,539

080

0.6%

4,2261,442

48001

1,4261,288

3336

02.8%

1381.0%

1,9221,126

7950

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

table 14.67: middle east: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.70: middle east: installed capacity GW

table 14.71: middle east: primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.69: middle east: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.68: middle east: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

78038

0470240

302

2421020

1000000

01

781751

380

470240

30

3124

212020

616

86.073.0

0622

30.3%

3.9%

1

2020

91226

0532200

353

4062

65

301

210030

107

021

933764

260

535200

35

1644062

6131230

1

73

1589.084.0

3749

697.4%

17.6%

174

2030

1,19216

0500100

353

45150

5514

3002

330030

1613

033

1,225622

160

503100

35

59845

150551927

3002

84

13591.097.0

7904

20716.9%

48.8%

328

2040

1,50870

29010

253

48190230

20700

3

550030

2725

055

1,563312

70

29310

25

1,24648

190230

3045

7003

108

17993

1158

1,178

42327.1%

79.7%

423

2050

2,10100

902103

50230420

401260

5

700020

3632

070

2,17196

00

92210

2,07650

230420

3972

1,2605

1211

310104.0138.0

91,622

65530.2%

95.6%

392

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

64035

0343238

200

2100000

0000000

00

640619

350

343238

20

2121

000000

514

8257

0501

00%

3.3%

2010

24560

13583

60

0.312

0.90.3

00.8

0

0000000

00

245231

60

13583

60

1412

100010

1.20.5%

5.7%

2020

30040

15675

60.70.418

25.33.10.89.70.3

4001021

04

305242

40

15675

60.7621825

332

100

28.79.4%

20.2%

2030

36230

14941

60.70.520

61.230.6

2.247.6

0.4

7001043

07

369200

30

15041

60.7

168206131

45

480

92.225.0%

45.7%

2040

45110

11555

0.70.520

72.2127.8

3.11000.9

11001065

011

462126

10

11555

0.7335

2072

12868

1001

200.943.5%

72.6%

2050

60000

53130

0.520

87.5233.3

6.2193.8

1.4

14000076

014

61357

00

53130

5562087

2338

12194

1

322.252.5%

90.7%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

20060

9879

600

1000000

0000000

00

200190

60

9879

60

1010

000000

00%

5.2%

2010

25,50425,132

3772

11,70713,046

0372

867

108118

530

1.5%60

2020

28,40326,202

2552

14,27911,665

582,143

144223796366610

47.6%6,041

2030

28,96723,441

1682

14,0079,264

575,469

162540

2,875632

1,2545

18.7%13,429

2040

27,66217,090

910

9,8617,137

5610,517

173684

6,806876

1,96711

37.4%21,347

2050

27,59010,089

340

4,7425,312

017,501

180828

12,4801,0372,958

1862.3%28,521

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

21,41621,262

3702

9,07511,815

0154

760

3344

00

0.7%

2010

55731

0.2303

216.07

00000

55731

0303223

1,358187%

236190375557

0

2076.5

2020

52621

0.2319180

7

20020

52821

0320186

1,352186%

265210352526

0

2495.4

2030

38913

0.2280

907

20020

39113

0282

96

1,148158%

241203314389

0

2864.0

2040

16960

1508.6

5

10010

17160

15114

781108%

196151265169

0

3192.4

2050

4800

431.6

3

10010

4900

444

39354%

9955

19148

0

3471.1

2005

48130

0231214

6

00000

48130

0231220

1,173162%

192179321481

0

1886.2

2010

100091

8242

5,5045,315

549145

5,5225,317

57100

48

4%

0

2020

10100

9110

155197066

7,0526,164

95577217

7,3086,182

165668293

15%

276

2030

17800

16118

23617

100119

7,9355,883

1551,437

461

8,3495,900

2551,597

597

29%

939

2040

40000

36040

38812

153223

8,5584,490

2263,098

744

9,3464,502

3793,4581,007

52%

1,744

2050

61600

55562

4798

187284

9,1971,775

3175,8781,227

10,2921,784

5056,4321,572

83%

2,648

2005

00000

0000

4,6434,575

3533

0

4,6434,575

3533

0

1.5%

table 14.72: middle east: final energy demandPJ/a

appendix: middle east energy [r]evolution scenario

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- MID

DL

E E

AS

T

202

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

appendix: transition economies reference scenario

table 14.73: transition economies: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.76: transition economies: installed capacity GW

table 14.77: transition economies: primary energy demandPJ/A

table 14.75: transition economies: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.74: transition economies: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

1,002137

77135

191

2972

32660300

787160

64526

2610

0

73255

1,7891,146

298141662

451

297346326

60

12300

899

116221279

01,261

60.3%

19.3%

2020

1,322158120272

173

3415

37919

0700

801145

65562

1614

0

74061

2,1231,358

303185834

333

341425379

190

19700

949

134267303

01,513

190.9%

20%

2030

1,544154170330

115

39915

41434

011

10

854139

69616

1317

0

79064

2,3971,507

293239946

245

399491414

340

3111

10

939

139309308

81,726

341.4%

20.5%

2040

1,796235246328

105

43721

44949

015

20

866123

70644

722

0

80066

2,6621,668

358316972

175

437557449

490

4315

20

879

157348315

121,917

491.8%

20.9%

2050

2,055319311342

95

47525

48363

019

20

879107

71672

030

0

81069

2,9341,836

426382

1,01395

475623483

630

5519

20

788

176388321

152,112

642.2%

21.2%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

82161728814

0281

0304

00000

777137

71520

3810

0

72453

1,5981,002

198144608

520

281314304

00

10000

879

126195262

01,101

00%

19.7%

2010

20121

11.819

91

41.80.296

2.30

0.300

2526025

14816

30

24013

454310

8136

16725

141.8102

9620

3.3000

2.30.5%

22.4%

2020

26324

18.04010

348.0

0.61127.0

01.00.1

0

2524520

175840

23914

515343

6838

21518

348.0124112

70

4.2100

7.01.4%

24.1%

2030

30223

25.050

75

56.21.8

12211.4

0.11.50.2

0

2934020

225530

28014

595399

6345

27512

556.2140122

110

5.2100

11.51.9%

23.5%

2040

36739

36.266

65

61.52.6

13216.2

0.22.00.3

0

3043520

243340

29113

671452

7456

30895

61.5158132

160

6.8200

16.42.4%

23.5%

2050

44958

45.898

65

66.93.2

14220.9

0.32.60.4

0

3083020

253060

29414

757515

8866

35065

66.9175142

210

8.8300

21.32.8%

23.1%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

1679

11.112

60.1

39.60

890.1

00.1

00

2445328

13525

30

23113

411279

6239

14731

039.6

9389

00

3.2000

0.10%

22.5%

2010

48,35242,918

7,5982,248

23,3749,699

3,2352,1981,172

222

903100

04.5%

2020

52,96146,267

7,0852,593

25,84210,747

3,7212,9741,365

695

1,228306

05.5%

2030

57,02048,922

6,6203,082

27,69311,528

4,3543,7441,490

1229

1,625497

06.5%

2040

60,43450,908

6,8023,771

28,29012,046

4,7684,7581,615

17514

2,271682

07.8%

2050

63,93353,038

6,9884,332

29,08912,628

5,1835,7121,740

22818

2,864863

08.9%

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share

2005

46,25441,242

6,4082,401

23,2349,199

3,0701,9421,093

12

82521

04.1%

2010

299119

937114

2.6

996285157522

33

1,296404249593

50

2,47956%329415300

1,258176

3397.3

2020

434132142140

137.1

864229145471

19

1,299361288611

39

2,61659%348457359

1,262191

3327.9

2030

508124199166

810.8

798197143443

15

1,307321342609

34

2,73461%385481398

1,272198

3218.5

2040

628182285145

79.8

721157134423

8

1,349338419567

25

2,86864%409495433

1,318214

3099.3

2050

741238355132

79

655123125407

0

1,396361481539

16

3,00367%435507469

1,367225

29410.2

2005

19954884711

0.2

1,057263179568

48

1,256316267614

59

2,37553%331387278

1,214165

3417.0

2010

2,4312,283

14602

6,0105,939

710

10,2049,783

4042

14

18,64518,005

6212

17

3.4%

2020

2,9172,558

35009

5,6535,564

890

11,34110,787

4444

106

19,91118,909

8834

115

5.0%

2030

3,3472,731

6020

13

5,6095,507

1020

12,54411,819

4945

226

21,49920,057

1,1985

240

6.7%

2040

4,0042,9831,001

020

5,1725,039

1320

13,49912,569

5678

355

22,67520,592

1,7008

375

9.2%

2050

4,5893,1851,377

028

4,8094,637

1730

14,43613,308

62310

495

23,83421,129

2,17310

522

11.3%

2005

2,1962,136

6001

6,2226,149

730

9,9339,484

44126

18,35117,769

57326

3.2%

table 14.78: transition economies: final energy demandPJ/a 2010

32,55130,042

6,5314,1491,835

0547106

01.6%

10,1042,109

4083,475

86713

1,0202,702

083

25.7%

13,4071,882

3644,563

113539

1,4624,540

2410

96.7%

1,5845.3%

2,508873

1,516119

2020

36,25133,386

7,7164,9522,174

1589118

01.5%

10,8572,593

5183,283

168533

1,1073,229

08526

7.3%

14,8122,266

4534,864

249650

1,5255,016

4437

518.1%

2,1116.3%

2,865998

1,731136

2030

39,68336,547

8,4915,4902,400

3578118

211.5%

12,0283,020

6193,329

265523

1,2193,790

08859

8.6%

16,0282,616

5365,185

412599

1,5815,460

5473109

9.6%

2,6907.4%

3,1361,0921,895

149

2040

42,44739,095

9,1185,9592,588

6534112

311.4%

13,0113,427

7173,320

418454

1,3074,278

0129

9710.5%

16,9652,941

6165,405

680526

1,6045,795

8516171

11.7%

3,4768.9%

3,3521,1672,026

159

2050

45,23241,661

9,7476,4482,780

12466

9941

1.2%

14,0153,857

8193,319

560399

1,3934,755

0151140

11.9%

17,8993,278

6965,618

948448

1,6286,120

10558239

13.7%

4,23910.2%

3,5711,2432,158

170

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

30,92428,620

5,8533,8481,636

0368

720

1.2%

10,2771,901

3743,826

54712802

2,9570

790

4.9%

12,4911,696

3344,199

59399

1,4544,276

2458

66.9%

1,4385.0%

2,304802

1,392109

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- TR

AN

SIT

ION

EC

ON

OM

IES

203

2010

32,01929,511

6,5314,2231,761

7540107

01.7%

9,7002,080

4123,420

169585686

2,68134

15162

8.5%

13,2801,902

3764,495

222160

1,3344,712

11520147

9.6%

2,2187.5%

2,508873

1,516119

2020

32,24629,693

6,0253,5831,623

94725210

05.0%

9,7322,289

6623,267

718504276

2,336134791134

25.1%

13,9361,989

5754,6751,028

142620

4,541568936465

25.6%

6,31421.3%

2,553889

1,543121

2030

31,97029,460

5,4643,0361,456

247722346

310.9%

9,3502,3091,1063,1251,276

32037

2,091256

1,019192

41.2%

14,6452,1211,0165,0002,041

0369

3,833910

1,3791,033

43.6%

10,82436.7%

2,510874

1,517119

2040

30,52328,128

4,8632,3391,268

400842599

1520.7%

8,6782,2201,5782,8621,768

40134

1,413350

1,194204

58.7%

14,5872,1911,5585,1213,162

0226

2,8091,2131,6541,375

61.4%

15,06453.6%

2,395834

1,447114

2050

28,65126,399

4,2371,5771,069

3661,190

95935

31.9%

7,7562,0601,6612,5451,847

33630

903461

1,164256

69.5%

14,4052,3291,8785,1913,768

0223

1,1371,8011,7731,951

77.5%

17,91567.9%

2,252784

1,361107

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

30,92428,620

5,8533,8481,636

0368

720

1.2%

10,2771,901

3743,826

54712802

2,9570

790

4.9%

12,4911,696

3344,199

59399

1,4544,276

2458

66.9%

1,4385.0%

2,304802

1,392109

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

table 14.79: transition economies: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.82: transition economies: installed capacity GW

table 14.83: transition economies: primary energy demandPJ/A

table 14.81: transition economies: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.80: transition economies: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

9925868

22014

0305

5320

10100

796132

67538

3326

1

73957

1,7881,129

190135758

470

305354320

10

31200

9717

140216.0273.0

01,256

10.1%

19.8%

5

2020

1,1124740

32060

29010

35028

231

15

8108538

5329

1389

75060

1,9231,077

13278

85215

0290556350

282

14812

115

10125

147228.0259.0

01,390

452.3%

28.9%

124

2030

1,1323725

26530

15010

360210

4048

20

8162315

4961

24139

75066

1,948865

6040

76140

150933360210

40251

438

20

10140

157230

229.01

1,431

27013.9%

47.9%

295

2040

1,16480

11500

3010

370490

955

1525

81900

4190

32278

75069

1,983543

90

53400

301,410

370490

95332

831525

9959

182228.0207.0

61,459

61030.8%

71.1%

458

2050

1,26040

15000

10375710

956

1530

82300

3850

36079

75073

2,083403

40

400000

1,679375710

95370

851530

9576

197229.0189.0

131,550

83540.1%

80.6%

562

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

82161728814

0281

0304

00000

777137

71520

3810

0

72453

1,5981,002

198144608

520

281314304

00

10000

879

126195262

01,101

00%

19.7%

2010

1969

10.432

60.1

43.00.694

0.40.10.1

00

2565026

15121

80

24313

452305

5836

18328

043.0104

94009000

0.50.1%

23.0%

2020

2287

6.049

30.1

40.81.3

10310.2

1.90.40.34.3

2502612

1665

392

23613

477275

3418

21590

40.8162103

102

40204

16.43.4%

33.9%

2030

3045

3.742

20.1

21.11.3

10672.442.1

0.51.85.7

24774

1800

488

23314

551244

128

22220

21.1285106

724249

826

120.221.8%

51.8%

2040

41610

200

0.14.21.3

109169.0

1000.72.97.1

23200

1560

6016

21814

647178

10

17600

4.2466109169100

6116

37

276.142.6%

71.9%

2050

4731030

0.10

1.3110

244.81000.82.98.6

22600

1430

6716

21114

698147

10

147000

551110245100

6817

39

353.450.6%

78.9%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

1679

11.112

60.1

39.60

890.1

00.1

00

2445328

13525

30

23113

411279

6239

14731

039.6

9389

00

3.2000

0.10%

22.5%

2010

47,78741,436

5,6582,207

24,2859,286

3,3283,0231,152

457

1,525286

06.3%

744

2020

46,63535,100

4,0731,189

23,2296,610

3,1648,3701,260

101792

4,9991,164

5418.0%6,387

2030

43,51027,871

2,535544

19,6915,102

1,63714,002

1,296756

1,5567,3302,991

7232.1%13,504

2040

39,31519,608

2,0100

13,7043,894

32719,380

1,3321,7642,3729,0274,794

9049.1%20,949

2050

35,76413,625

1,8960

8,7902,939

022,139

1,3502,5563,4469,0305,649

10861.9%27,859

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

46,25441,242

6,4082,401

23,2349,199

3,0701,9421,093

12

82521

04.1%

2010

25850

81.8116

10.50.3

973235163531

43

1,231286245647

54

2,32152%289380305

1,196151

3396.9

2020

25639

47.51654.50.2

676136

84444

12

933175132609

17

1,83041%226315259903126

3325.5

2030

19529

29.31342.30.2

4203331

3550

6146260

4893

1,33430%174244220588109

3214.2

2040

5870

510

0.2

27300

2730

33170

3240

85019%139175170309

57

3092.8

2050

93060

0.2

23200

2320

24030

2380

53912%101

81115222

20

2941.8

2005

1995488471110

1,057263179568

48

1,256316267614

59

2,37553%331387278

1,214165

3417.0

2010

2,2402,005

2021122

6,0805,890

1845

9,9679,129

55045

243

18,28717,024

93656

271

7%

358

2020

2,6591,861

53280

186

5,6974,660

95878

10,4647,5931,467

702702

18,82014,114

2,957782966

25%

1,091

2030

3,1001,643

775217465

5,4393,4461,637

355

10,7496,0052,1111,1671,467

19,28811,094

4,5231,3842,287

42%

2,212

2040

3,181891954414922

5,2102,3922,118

700

10,3024,3312,5061,5631,902

18,6937,6145,5781,9763,525

59%

3,982

2050

3,151315788788

1,260

4,9811,9902,283

708

9,7122,2082,5852,2622,657

17,8444,5135,6563,0504,625

75%

5,990

2005

2,1962,136

6001

6,2226,149

730

9,9339,484

44126

18,35117,769

57326

3.2%

table 14.84: transition economies: final energy demandPJ/a

appendix: transition economies energy [r]evolution scenario

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- TR

AN

SIT

ION

EC

ON

OM

IES

204

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

appendix: india reference scenario

table 14.85: india: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.88: india: installed capacity GW

table 14.89: india: primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.87: india: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.86: india: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

988667

238533

024

4127

250000

9900000

09

997817676

238533

024

156127

2504000

30.40.1

24367

0690

252.5%

15.6%

2020

1,7621,160

42186

340

8314

18952

3000

4545

00000

045

1,8071,4671,205

42186

340

83257189

523

14000

50.70.2

392108

01,312

553.0%

14.2%

2030

2,6901,808

66292

310

12829

25869

8100

8484

00000

084

2,7742,2811,892

66292

310

128365258

698

29100

81

0.3551151

02,079

772.8%

13.2%

2040

4,0662,936

107348

280

17344

3278613

200

123123

00000

0123

4,1883,5423,059

107348

280

173473327

861344

200

122

0.5710195

03,295

992.4%

11.3%

2050

5,8504,478

164384

260

21960

397104

18200

162162

00000

0162

6,0125,2134,639

164384

260

219581397104

1860

200

183

0.7870239

04,921

1222.0%

9.7%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

699464

166231

017

2100

60000

0000000

00

699574464

166231

017

108100

602000

20.30.1

17548

0478

60.9%

15.5%

2010

2041113.22111

04.20.743

11.20.1

000

2200000

02

206148113

32111

04.2554311

00.7

000

11.35.5%

26.5%

2020

3401785.94512

011.0

2.162

21.12.1

000

1111

00000

011

351253190

64512

011.0

886221

22.1

000

23.26.6%

25.0%

2030

5092709.57911

017.0

4.085

28.25.70.2

00

2121

00000

021

530390291

107911

017.0123

8528

64.0

000

33.96.4%

23.2%

2040

749438

16.09419

023.0

5.9108

35.29.40.3

00

3030

00000

030

779598469

169419

023.0158108

359

5.9000

44.65.7%

20.3%

2050

1042668

25.2104

210

29.08.0

13042.312.9

0.400

4040

00000

040

1082859709

25104

210

29.0194130

4213

8.0000

55.35.1%

17.9%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

14777

2.21610

03.00.434

4.00000

0000000

00

147105

772

1610

03.03834

40

0.4000

4.02.7%

26.2%

2010

27,34419,66011,290

2841,5426,545

2627,422

45788

16,876

00

27.1%

2020

40,16130,90917,780

4262,7159,987

9028,350

679186

227,443

200

20.8%

2030

54,67643,78425,521

5693,900

13,794

1,3969,496

929248

558,202

610

17.4%

2040

70,43358,44233,956

8904,421

19,175

1,89110,101

1,178311

948,416

1010

14.3%

2050

89,09076,06744,241

1,3104,693

25,824

2,38610,637

1,428373137

8,560138

011.9%

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share

2005

22,34415,150

8,449221

1,2085,272

1897,005

36022

06,623

00

31.3%

2010

870772

324026

0

88000

879781

324026

1,400244%

255126149870

0

1,2201.2

2020

1,3501,194

478524

0

3737

000

1,3871,231

478524

2,216386%

431153283

1,3500

1,3791.7

2030

1,9381,729

63125

200

6161

000

1,9991,790

63125

20

3,207558%

625175469

1,9380

1,5062.3

2040

2,5912,340

99133

190

7777

000

2,6682,418

99133

19

4,361759%

831185754

2,5910

1,5972.9

2050

3,4103,123

145125

170

8787

000

3,4983,210

145125

17

5,7761,005%

1,040186

1,1393,410

0

1,6583.6

2005

666585

253026

0

00000

666585

253026

1,074187%

181119108666

0

1,1341.0

2010

00000

4848

00

8,9803,6455,335

00

9,0283,6935,335

00

59.1%

2020

00000

204204

00

11,0715,3825,665

1113

11,2755,5875,665

1113

50.5%

2030

00000

315315

00

13,3097,2945,951

2737

13,6257,6105,951

2737

44.1%

2040

00000

398398

00

15,6879,3016,278

4761

16,0859,7006,278

4761

39.7%

2050

00000

497497

00

18,07711,356

6,5637285

18,57411,853

6,5637285

36.2%

2005

00000

0000

8,0822,9585,125

00

8,0822,9585,125

00

63.4%

table 14.90: india: final energy demandPJ/a 2010

17,62116,010

2,1562,040

402155

90

1.4%

5,4311,193

18648

01,617

985396

01,192

025.4%

8,4231,235

19300

2951,275

530

5,5650

68.4%

7,16644.8%

1,6111,174

4370

2020

25,03122,728

4,1033,866

7756

10415

01.7%

8,3872,247

320204

02,8691,328

4925

1,2411

18.7%

10,2382,373

33800

2521,636

1256

5,83511

60.5%

7,82834.4%

2,3031,614

6880

2030

33,97730,837

6,7836,418

12584

15621

01.5%

11,6903,476

457315

04,4501,585

56013

1,2892

15.1%

12,3643,852

50700

2221,879

24414

6,12033

54.0%

8,54027.7%

3,1402,201

9390

2040

45,79641,81910,83310,338

172111212

240

1.2%

15,9235,372

606398

06,1172,025

60425

1,3774

12.6%

15,0636,276

70800

2441,938

30822

6,21955

46.5%

9,15221.9%

3,9772,7881,189

0

2050

60,42755,61216,28115,644

219142275

270

1.0%

20,8297,831

756497

07,8872,417

68242

1,4658

10.9%

18,5029,609

92800

2321,917

38330

6,25675

39.4%

9,72917.5%

4,8153,3751,439

0

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

14,90813,569

1,5491,480

284

3860

0.7%

4,145756117

00

1,093798355

01,143

030.4%

7,875927143

00

3451,143

320

5,4270

70.7%

6,84050.4%

1,3391,028

3110

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- IND

IA

205

2010

17,61816,009

2,1562,040

402155

90

1.4%

5,4311,193

18648

01,617

985396

01,192

025.4%

8,4221,235

19300

2951,273

540

5,5650

68.4%

7,16644.8%

1,6091,172

4370

2020

23,15421,188

3,7863,342

71112262

680

4.8%

7,5822,003

523313313

1,9201,0121,089

217971

5727.4%

9,8192,106

55066

271972428374

5,62933

67.1%

8,85441.8%

1,9661,433

5330

2030

28,67426,174

5,4174,331

98250737255

09.3%

9,5312,793

966732732

1,870874

1,723569759211

34.0%

11,2273,0551,056

3434

259782611

1,1225,270

9467.5%

11,31843.2%

2,5001,800

7000

2040

34,26431,247

7,0475,259

109363

1,288621

2814.2%

11,5253,7901,8271,7891,7891,586

6411,862

842586427

47.5%

12,6764,4342,137

7171

218634663

1,7144,764

17669.9%

15,33149.1%

3,0172,167

8500

2050

39,56336,263

8,6776,056

112510

1,9281,150

6919.6%

13,4214,9032,9233,1163,1161,228

2971,7891,044

430613

60.6%

14,1656,0593,612

221221182296719

2,3573,890

44274.3%

20,34956.1%

3,3002,350

9500

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

14,90813,569

1,5491,480

284

3860

0.7%

4,145756117

00

1,093798355

01,143

030.4%

7,875927143

00

3451,143

320

5,4270

70.7%

6,84050.4%

1,3391,028

3110

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

table 14.91: india: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.94: india: installed capacity GW

table 14.95: india: primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.93: india: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.92: india: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

989667

238533

024

4127

250000

9900000

09

997817676

238533

024

156127

2504000

30.40.1

243.067.0

0690

252.5%

15.6%

0

2020

1,601931

13188

120

5315

189170

134

104

6021

010

024

5

060

1,6611,174

95213

19812

053

434189170

1339

910

4

41

0.2354.0

97.00

1,214

18711.3%

26.1%

98

2030

2,2531,042

8424

30

4320

258310

718

607

15031

022

07523

0150

2,4031,5291,072

8446

30

43831258310

71953060

7

63

0.2455.0125.0

0.61,829

38816.1%

34.6%

250

2040

2,9851,061

4538

00

2425

392416190

16304

14

37059

052

0185

74

0370

3,3551,7141,120

4590

00

241,617

392416190210

90304

14

95

0.3557.0153.0

392,614

62018.5%

48.2%

680

2050

3,7651,044

0546

000

30474520480

16630

25

67087

0114

0335134

0670

4,4351,7911,131

0660

000

2,644474520480365150630

25

118

0.4659.0181.0

933,514

1,02523.1%

59.6%

1,407

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

699464

166231

017

2100

60000

0000000

00

699574464

166231

017

108100

602000

20.30.1

17548

0478

60.9%

15.5%

2010

2041113.22111

04.20.743

11.20.2

000

2200000

02

207148113

32111

04.2554311

01000

11.45.5%

26.5%

2020

3511431.846

40

7.02.362

69.29.50.63.31.2

14502051

014

364202148

248

40

7.0155

626910

8231

79.921.9%

42.5%

2030

5721711.2

11510

5.72.885

126.551.0

1.210

1.9

338050

165

033

605300179

1119

10

5.7299

85127

5119

610

2

179.429.7%

49.4%

2040

8271850.6

14600

3.23.3

129169.8135.7

2.548.3

4.1

7715

010

03715

077

904356199

1156

00

3.2545129170136

411748

4

309.634.2%

60.3%

2050

1,157188

0148

000

4.0156

212.2342.9

2.596.9

7.1

13822

023

06627

0138

1,295380210

0170

000

915156212343

702997

7

562.243.4%

70.6%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

14777

2.21610

03.00.434

4.00000

0000000

00

147105

772

1610

03.03834

40

0.4000

4.02.7%

26.2%

2010

27,34519,66111,292

2841,5436,540

2627,423

45788

16,876

00

27.1%0

2020

35,21024,94013,410

1313,5967,802

5769,694

679610682

7,340368

1527.5%4,960

2030

41,64428,08012,897

696,4498,665

46713,097

9291,1162,2027,5841,242

2431.4%13,058

2040

47,61728,83312,108

337,1669,526

26018,524

1,4131,4984,4807,7293,353

5238.9%22,872

2050

52,12027,33310,478

07,1169,738

024,787

1,7061,8727,7107,8395,570

9047.6%37,071

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

22,34415,150

8,449221

1,2085,272

1897,005

36022

06,623

00

31.3%

2010

870773

31.640

25.90

88000

879781

324026

1,400244%

255126149870

0

12201.2

2020

1,002894

14.585

8.60

2217

050

1,024911

1590

9

1,706297%

338122245

1,0020

13791.3

2030

1,0228307.6

1822.0

0

3222

010

0

1,054853

8191

2

1,824317%

368117318

1,0220

15061.3

2040

9707723.7

19400

5737

020

0

1,027809

4213

0

1,816316%

357105385970

0

15971.2

2050

820648

0172

00

8447

037

0

904695

0209

0

1,662289%

32179

443820

0

16581.0

2005

666585

253026

0

00000

666585

253026

1,074187%

181119108666

0

11341.0

2010

00000

4848

00

8,9803,6455,335

00

9,0283,6935,335

00

59%

0

2020

280

2071

292140108

43

10,5424,5775,283

59192

10,8624,7175,411

598136

57%

413

2030

860

4338

5

681197281203

11,8915,0374,8371,691

325

12,6585,2345,1611,729

533

59%

967

2040

2340

59145

30

1,626360600666

12,3414,7184,4182,556

649

14,2015,0785,0762,7021,345

64%

1,884

2050

4820

58313111

2,855618

1,0311,206

12,1033,8883,6723,4011,142

15,4404,5074,7613,7142,459

71%

3,134

2005

00000

0000

8,0822,9585,125

00

8,0822,9585,125

00

63.4%

table 14.96: india: final energy demandPJ/a

appendix: india energy [r]evolution scenario

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- IND

IA

206

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

appendix: developing asia reference scenario

table 14.97: developing asia: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.100: developing asia: installed capacity GW

table 14.101: developing asia:primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.99: developing asia: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.98: developing asia: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

1,200361

24454136

430

13143

51

2200

10243010

46

1,210983363

28456136

043

184143

51

1422

00

714

10674

01,033

60.5%

15.2%

2020

1,728544

41630137

700

32219

214

3200

3055

14140

624

1,7581,377

54946

644138

070

311219

214

3632

00

1126

143113

01,507

241.4%

17.7%

2030

2,180749

57758111

720

55284

447

4200

5486

283

100

846

2,2341,720

75862

786114

072

442284

447

6542

00

1428

181145

01,914

512.3%

19.8%

2040

2,641967

72886

8674

077

349671052

00

8414

742

417

0

1074

2,7252,078

98179

92890

074

573349

67109452

00

172

10215181

02,337

782.8%

21.0%

2050

3,1811255

881020

6176

0101415

911462

00

10217

750

523

0

1290

3,2832,5031,272

951070

660

76705415

9114

12462

00

212

12246220

02,826

1043.2%

21.5%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

897229

19342122

4206

12000

1700

3030000

30

901716229

23342122

042

143120

006

1700

613

8651

0766

00%

15.8%

2010

30168

3.2122

420

5.03.051

2.10.73.6

00

3021000

21

304239

695

12342

05.06151

21

3.2400

2.80.9%

19.9%

2020

4441145.6

18141

08.35.473

8.42.64.7

00

8123010

35

452349115

8184

410

8.39573

83

6.3500

11.12.5%

21.0%

2030

5741567.9

23436

09.08.194

18.05.06.0

00

13226120

310

586444158

10240

360

9.0133

9418

510.2

600

23.03.9%

22.7%

2040

642179

10.1252

330

9.311.2107

25.67.47.4

00

19429130

315

661489183

12260

340

9.3162107

267

14.6700

32.95.0%

24.5%

2050

716209

12.5268

300

9.514.4118

34.59.88.9

00

2352

10150

419

739539214

15279

310

9.5191118

3410

18.9900

44.36.0%

25.8%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

22839

2.68941

05.02.046

00

3.000

2020000

20

230174

395

8941

05.05146

00

2.0300

00%

22.2%

2010

36,30827,061

6,054309

7,55813,140

4698,779

5151610

7,446792

024.2%

2020

45,79734,439

7,611432

10,08616,311

76410,594

7877539

8,5121,181

023.1%

2030

54,63841,405

9,320553

12,35819,174

78612,448

1,022158

679,6421,558

022.8%

2040

60,88746,37310,967

65912,78621,961

80713,707

1,257242100

10,5491,559

022.5%

2050

67,41451,66113,023

75412,95624,928

82914,925

1,493327138

11,4001,567

022.1%

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share

2005

31,09522,484

4,718268

6,04711,450

4638,148

43200

7,122594

026.2%

2010

621321

26209

660

132820

634323

34211

66

1,577325%

369149429630

0

10501.5

2020

805424

42262

760

184671

823429

48269

77

2,007414%

447173575811

2

11951.7

2030

986569

55289

730

2666

122

1,012575

61301

75

2,441503%

523197727994

1

13241.8

2040

1,137703

67311

560

3596

172

1,172713

73328

59

2,830583%

591204889

1,1461

14282.0

2050

1,325875

78332

400

3911

620

3

1,364886

84351

43

3,265673%

659211

10601,333

1

15042.2

2005

475233

21166

550

80800

483233

30166

55

1,303268%

330133357483

0

9751.3

2010

11000

8375

70

10,6145,3325,276

60

10,6975,4075,283

60

49.4%

2020

1313

000

142119

220

12,0536,5465,453

2529

12,2086,6795,475

2529

45.3%

2030

1010

000

216173

430

13,7247,8335,803

4246

13,9508,0165,846

4246

42.5%

2040

99000

286223

620

15,6088,8506,634

6361

15,9039,0836,696

6361

42.9%

2050

1313

000

326248

780

17,5569,8707,518

8879

17,89510,130

7,5978879

43.4%

2005

00000

3737

00

10,0874,7455,342

00

10,1234,7815,342

00

52.8%

table 14.102: developing asia: final energy demandPJ/a 2010

25,97723,450

5,9885,908

5022

810

0.4%

7,3341,652

25166

02,0211,4521,227

0915

015.9%

10,1282,058

31315

0241

1,389398

66,022

062.6%

7,53132.1%

2,5261,783

73013

2020

32,56029,280

8,1317,924

70126

1220

1.6%

9,2222,340

414125

22,2491,6981,791

51,006

715.5%

11,9273,072

54326

0273

1,586492

206,435

2358.9%

8,58329.3%

3,2802,315

94817

2030

38,66134,92310,36710,015

87251

1530

2.5%

10,8982,823

559185

42,4151,9412,435

131,071

1615.2%

13,6584,053

80236

1313

1,809551

296,836

3056.4%

9,61427.5%

3,7382,6381,080

19

2040

44,58940,39412,75312,255

104373

2140

3.0%

12,3893,254

684246

52,5472,1882,960

231,145

2615.2%

15,2535,1371,081

421

3531,806

60740

7,23235

55.0%

10,64926.4%

4,1952,9611,212

22

2050

50,89246,23915,27014,621

121500

2860

3.3%

13,9453,739

803285

72,6942,4863,477

351,190

3914.9%

17,0256,4091,376

461

3971,802

64654

7,63140

53.5%

11,68025.3%

4,6523,2841,344

24

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

22,55420,553

4,9644,914

420710

0%

6,2851,210

19212

01,8811,334

9880

8600

16.7%

9,3051,541

24425

0139

1,351348

05,901

066.0%

7,19935.0%

2,0011,412

57810

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- DE

VE

LO

PIN

G A

SIA

207

2010

25,97423,448

5,9885,908

5022

810

0.4%

7,3341,652

25166

02,0211,4521,228

0915

015.9%

10,1262,055

31315

0241

1,387399

66,022

062.6%

7,53232.1%

2,5261,783

73013

2020

29,35726,357

6,6376,366

5988

12333

01.8%

8,2922,058

554351225

1,9931,2081,535

168834145

23.2%

11,4282,653

7145837

2411,126

678464

6,14960

65.0%

9,47235.9%

3,0002,117

86815

2030

32,05128,651

7,1896,667

66132323144

13.8%

8,8982,2641,010

667501

1,807927

1,711404813305

34.1%

12,5653,1431,402

8161

210980805

1,1246,108

11470.1%

12,11842.3%

3,4002,398

98517

2040

34,13030,330

7,7406,815

73297539313

178.0%

9,2032,3841,386

858685

1,717565

1,813648743477

42.8%

13,3873,6172,103

9979

160729868

1,6185,919

37775.4%

14,65348.3%

3,8002,6791,102

19

2050

35,72631,625

8,2926,812

79576778524

4813.6%

9,3002,4501,650

989835

1,268299

1,8061,077

705704

53.5%

14,0334,0132,703

119101123384941

2,1885,686

57980.2%

17,36154.9%

4,1012,8711,210

20

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

22,55420,553

4,9644,914

420710

0%

6,2851,210

19212

01,8811,334

9880

8600

16.7%

9,3051,541

24425

0139

1,351348

05,901

066.0%

7,19935.0%

2,0011,412

57810

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

table 14.103: developing asia:electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.106: developing asia: installed capacity GW

table 14.107: developing asia:primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.105: developing asia: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.104: developing asia: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

1,199360

24454136

04313

14351

2200

10243010

46

1,209982362

28456136

043

184143

51

1422

00

724

106.074.0

01,032

60.5%

15.2%

1

2020

1,489387

15518108

06023

210991839

93

7119

327

213

6

665

1,5601080

40718

545110

060

420210

99183645

93

1046

119.0102.0

01,343

1207.7%

26.9%

164

2030

1,698288

8526

690

4024

240310

956030

8

14745

144

13521

9138

1,845982333

9570

700

40823240310

95598130

8

1166

142.0116.0

21,590

41322.4%

44.6%

324

2040

1,903201

3531

300

1226

263450195

919012

20953

054

06734

12197

2,112872254

3585

300

121,228

263450195

93125

9012

1277

167.0127.0

241,799

65731.1%

58.1%

537

2050

2,106105

0531

1000

29286530325114160

16

25069

054

08147

15235

2,356769174

0585

1000

1,587286530325110160160

16

1398

197.0135.0

641,965

87137.0%

67.4%

862

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

897229

19342122

042

6120

00

1700

3030000

30

901716229

23342122

042

143120

006

1700

613

8651

0766

00%

15.8%

2010

30168

3.5122

420

5.03.051

2.10.73.6

00

3021000

21

304239

695

12342

05.06151

213400

2.80.9%

19.9%

2020

40981

2.6149

320

7.13.970

40.412.9

5.62.90.9

17516031

215

426278

864

15533

07.1

141704013

7731

54.112.7%

33.1%

2030

54460

1.8162

220

5.03.679

126.567.9

8.65.02.3

3311

010

074

231

577267

712

17222

05.0

30579

127681113

52

196.734.1%

52.8%

2040

65642

0.9166

200

1.53.881

171.1139.3

13.014.3

3.4

4513

011

013

7

342

700253

551

17720

01.5

44681

171139

172014

3

313.844.8%

63.6%

2050

76223

0166

800

4.182

201.5232.1

16.224.6

4.6

5417

011

016

9

450

816226

410

177800

59082

202232

202625

5

438.253.7%

72.3%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

22839

2.68941

05.02.046

00

3.000

2020000

20

230174

395

8941

05.05146

00

2.0300

00%

22.2%

2010

36,29927,051

6,044309

7,56113,137

4698,779

5151610

7,446792

024.2%

14

2020

40,53828,258

6,123169

8,95913,007

65511,625

756356737

7,8611,903

1128.7%5,276

2030

43,39327,548

5,11683

9,66212,688

43615,408

8641,1161,9867,9953,418

2935.5%11,270

2040

43,88425,217

4,22325

8,95112,018

13118,535

9471,6203,3027,9834,640

4342.2%17,048

2050

43,83822,449

3,0430

8,10911,297

021,389

1,0301,9085,0277,9775,390

5848.8%23,642

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

31,09522,484

4,718268

6,04711,450

4638,148

43200

7,122594

026.2%

2010

620320

25.8209

65.60

132820

633323

34211

66

1,576325%

369149429629

0

10501.5

2020

594302

15.3216

60.30

3416

313

1

628318

19229

62

1,596329%

390145462598

0

11951.3

2030

4722197.8

20045.2

0

5433

120

1

526251

9220

46

1,482305%

383139484475

0

13241.1

2040

3551462.8

18619.8

0

5836

022

0

413182

3208

20

1,329274%

357120495357

0

14280.9

2050

25373

01736.6

0

6645

021

0

318118

0194

7

1,148236%

30295

496255

0

15040.8

2005

475233

21166

550

80800

483233

30166

55

1,303268%

330133357483

0

9751.3

2010

11000

8375

70

10,6145,3325,276

60

10,6975,4085,283

60

49%

0

2020

352

1688

381233

6979

11,3785,4765,065

632205

11,7945,7115,150

640293

52%

414

2030

382

188

10

723347149227

12,232530949731528

421

12,9935,6585,1411,536

658

56%

957

2040

461

221112

925353234338

13,1544,9315,0812,265

876

14,1255,2855,3382,2761,226

63%

1,778

2050

610

291616

1,065379267419

13,8654,1115,1833,2651,306

14,9904,4905,4793,2811,742

70%

2,904

2005

00000

3737

00

10,0874,7455,342

00

10,1234,7815,342

00

52.8%

table 14.108: developing asia:final energy demandPJ/a

appendix: developing asia energy [r]evolution scenario

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- DE

VE

LO

PIN

G A

SIA

208

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

appendix: china reference scenario

table 14.109: china: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.112: china: installed capacity GW

table 14.113: china: primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.111: china: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.110: china: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

3,7863,030

04758

070

7557

160100

171149

015

250

18153

3,9573,3003,179

06260

070

587557

160

12100

250

24293535

03,129

160.4%

14.8%

2020

6,0594,825

09849

0167

24813

775100

328225

072

624

2

56272

6,3885,2745,050

0170

550

167946813

775

48300

400

39439866

05,083

821.3%

14.8%

2030

7,9806,327

0148

420

25652

1,005133

15200

492260

0165

858

3

117375

8,4726,9486,586

0313

490

2561,2681,005

13315

110500

530

52530

1,1320

6,812

1481.7%

15.0%

2040

9,9287,934

0138

320

34565

1197189

25400

657297

0239

11107

4

179478

10,5858,6508,231

0376

430

3451,5901,197

18925

172700

780

60521

1,3460

8,735

2142.0%

15.0%

2050

11,7869,463

0133

230

43361

1,389245

34500

822343

0287

14173

4

241581

12,60710,263

9,8060

42037

0433

1,9111,389

24534

234900

1050

74476

1,4970

10,665

2792.2%

15.2%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

2,4381,884

03861

053

3397

20000

10197

03000

1388

2,5392,0841,982

04161

053

402397

203000

160

16173330

02,035

20.1%

15.8%

2010

759549

01413

08.91.9

1667.40.20.1

00

4640

05010

937

805620589

01813

08.9

176166

70

2.8000

7.60.9%

21.9%

2020

1,245892

03612

020.4

5.8243

31.43.90.2

00

8762

020

140

2463

1,3321,023

9540

5613

020.4289243

314

9.6100

35.32.7%

21.7%

2030

1,6521,185

051

90

31.010.2300

54.310.7

0.400

13171

050

280

4784

1,7841,3681,256

0101

110

31.0384300

5411

18.6100

65.03.6%

21.6%

2040

2,0431,486

048

70

41.712.7357

71.917.6

0.600

17283

072

215

1

70102

2,2151,6971,569

0119

90

41.7476357

7218

28.2100

89.54.0%

21.5%

2050

2,4211,772

046

50

52.511.8415

93.224.6

0.800

21298

086

325

1

91122

2,6332,0101,870

0132

80

52.5571415

9325

36.9200

117.74.5%

21.7%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

483336

09

120

7.00.6

1171.00.1

000

3231

01000

1022

516390367

01112

07.0

119117

10

0.6000

1.10.2%

23.0%

2010

96,34083,94362,553

03,175

18,215

76411,633

2,0055884

9,45234

012.1%

2020

133,181117,931

85,7160

5,87126,344

1,82513,424

2,927277400

9,709111

010.1%

2030

159,872142,596100,422

08,341

33,834

2,79314,482

3,618479710

9,482193

09.0%

2040

174,347155,289103,678

09,600

42,010

3,76115,297

4,309680

1,0169,020

2720

8.7%

2050

185,017164,523103,595

010,51950,409

4,72815,767

5,000882

1,3078,232

3450

8.5%

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share

2005

73,00761,62845,951

01,805

13,872

57910,800

1,42980

9,36200

14.8%

2010

3,2053,139

02343

0

205192

012

1

3,4103,330

03545

6,246279%1,664

577529

3,228248

13594.6

2020

4,9734,896

04433

0

275227

044

4

5,2485,123

08837

8,995401%2,124

696913

5,026235

14306.3

2030

6,3176,230

06027

0

284201

079

4

6,6016,431

0139

32

10,969489%2,251

7901340

6,392197

14677.5

2040

6,6476,575

05021

0

308203

0100

6

6,9556,778

0150

27

11,919532%2,308

8291891

6,731160

14588.2

2050

6,6576,600

04215

0

335219

0109

7

6,9936,819

0151

23

12,572561%2,355

8572495

6,746118

14188.9

2005

2,0301,962

02048

0

149146

030

2,1792,108

02348

4,429198%1,295

481360

2,049244

13213.4

2010

1,6791,649

3000

1,1791,137

384

27,43319,903

7,44683

0

30,29022,689

7,51583

4

25.1%

2020

1,9001,799

10100

1,7331,574

14415

33,43425,551

7,481381

21

37,06728,924

7,727381

35

22.0%

2030

1,8121,631

18100

2,0341,744

26822

36,10528,856

6,543656

49

39,95232,231

6,993656

72

19.3%

2040

1,6081,431

17700

2,3101,886

39331

36,94930,336

5,609927

76

40,86733,653

6,179927108

17.7%

2050

1,2901,135

15500

2,6632,048

57639

37,22531,478

4,4621,183

103

41,17834,661

5,1931,183

142

15.8%

2005

1,4801,471

900

809809

00

23,22915,971

7,25800

25,51818,251

7,26700

28.5%

table 14.114: china: final energy demandPJ/a 2010

61,39255,361

7,5577,318

755

17726

01.1%

27,4537,9341,1771,976

3612,811

1,8712,825

037

04.6%

20,3503,154

468852

162,9313,2201,000

839,110

047.5%

11,00619.9%

6,0323,729

5131,790

2020

83,84675,16313,11912,630

12168309

460

1.6%

37,95612,826

1,9002,303

12716,714

2,2713,466

20356

06.3%

24,0895,165

7651,292

712,8224,3211,707

3618,400

1939.9%

12,23316.3%

8,6835,057

8322,794

2030

99,65690,02119,25918,547

15335362

540

2.0%

43,85716,538

2,4752,126

20617,723

2,4924,020

44914

08.3%

26,9047,6221,1411,680

1632,6885,1422,450

6126,662

4732.1%

12,65314.1%

9,6365,5061,0743,055

2040

115,907105,318

27,11826,189

17489422

630

2.0%

48,48020,226

3,0381,946

22017,962

2,6034,335

691,339

09.6%

29,72010,796

1,6211,934

2182,5465,3902,958

8585,164

7326.7%

13,15312.5%

10,5895,9561,3173,317

2050

132,236120,694

35,74134,586

19676459

701

2.1%

52,30023,635

3,5831,741

23818,193

2,5584,539

941,540

010.4%

32,65314,302

2,1682,178

2972,3745,5623,4251,0893,624

9922.3%

13,47811.2%

11,5426,4051,5593,578

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

47,53443,677

5,0624,986

30

7312

00.2%

20,4054,880

7721,667

99,6741,6272,557

000

3.8%

18,2102,373

376596

32,7232,585

6270

9,3050

53.2%

10,47724.0%

3,8582,626

315917

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- CH

INA

209

2010

60,78755,359

7,5577,318

755

17727

01.1%

27,4537,9341,2271,976

3612,811

1,8702,826

037

04.7%

20,3493,156

488855

162,9303,2151,003

839,106

047.6%

11,07520%

5,4283,688

4541,286

2020

75,13567,869

9,9929,077

13146753173

33.2%

34,64611,678

2,6892,770

24514,229

1,9273,503

144292103

10%

23,2314,7331,0901,615

1432,5973,1661,687

6248,741

6845.9%

14,45921.3%

7,2664,918

6391,709

2030

79,17071,37012,054

9,80516

4841,695

61855

9.3%

35,24513,220

4,8183,325

50612,082

1,3523,848

535654230

19.1%

24,0716,2162,2652,215

3371,9592,7211,6711,2227,903

16449.4%

19,75527.7%

7,8005,259

7201,821

2040

80,71272,41213,97010,502

20763

2,5661,279

12015.0%

34,02414,102

7,0303,791

9567,052

7563,7291,9911,5921,012

37.0%

24,4197,8683,9222,833

7151,5221,3551,4182,4436,443

53757.6%

28,74339.7%

8,3005,575

8021,923

2050

81,62073,12017,29611,465

201,2084,3892,777

21423.8%

31,36514,139

8,9464,2601,6631,414

1893,2703,6642,4142,015

59.6%

24,4589,2315,8413,2571,271

573365

1,3333,3804,6631,656

68.7%

39,63554.2%

8,5005,687

8581,955

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

47,53443,677

5,0624,986

30

7312

00.2%

20,4054,880

7721,667

99,6741,6272,557

000

3.8%

18,2102,373

376596

32,7232,585

6270

9,3050

53.2%

10,47724.0%

3,8582,626

315917

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

table 14.115: china: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.118: china: installed capacity GW

table 14.119: china: primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.117: china: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.116: china: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

3,7743,002

04456

070

7557

381100

173148

018

071

20153

3,9483,2673,150

06256

070

611557

381

14100

242

24278.0

5400

3,130

391.0%

15.5%

0

2020

5,4993,946

09645

0103

29850370

225

285

484291

0124

066

3

184300

5,9834,5034,238

0220

450

1031,378

850370

2295

828

5

369

35407.0808.0

4.64,764

3976.6%

23.0%

319

2030

6,2833,599

0131

250

6358

1,050930190

12200

25

975507

0289

0172

8

535440

7,2584,5504,105

0420

250

632,6451,050

930190230

20200

25

431742

452.0917.0

755,816

114515.8%

36.4%

996

2040

6,7492,813

0155

100

2393

1,2901,330

42019

52075

1,529685

0465

0347

33

934595

8,2784,1283,498

0620

100

234,1271,2901,330

420440

52520

75

552943

472.0958.0

1626,698

182522.0%

49.9%

2,036

2050

7,2711,801

0221

000

1271,5301,510

81023

990260

1,990781

0599

0503107

1,223767

9,2613,4012,581

0820

000

5,8601,5301,510

810630130990260

644545

492.0998.0

2857,505

2,58027.9%

63.3%

3,161

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

2,4381,884

03861

053

3397

20000

10197

03000

1388

2,5392,0841,982

04161

053

402397

203000

160

16173330

02,035

20.1%

15.8%

2010

763544

01312

08.91.8

16617.4

0.40.1

00

4740

05010

1037

810614584

01812

08.9

186166

1703000

17.72.2%

23.0%

2020

1,227729

03511

012.5

7.2254

151.015.8

0.89.01.4

14695

041

010

1

8066

1,373910824

07611

012.5450254151

1617

191

168.312.3%

32.8%

2030

1,614673

046

60

7.611.4313

379.6135.7

2.033.3

7.1

301170

0105

025

1

20992

1,915999843

0150

60

7.6909313380136

363

337

522.427.3%

47.5%

2040

1,925552

052

20

2.818.2385

505.73003.2

82.521.4

462235

0173

049

5

342120

2,3861,013

7870

22420

2.81,370

385506300

688

8321

827.134.7%

57.4%

2050

2,311375

074

000

24.8457

574.1578.6

3.8150

74.3

579268

0224

07216

426153

2,890940643

0298

000

1,950457574579

9620

15074

1227.042.5%

67.5%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

483336

09

120

7.00.6

1171.00.1

000

3231

01000

1022

516390367

01112

07.0

119117

10

0.6000

1.10.2%

23.0%

2010

95,44982,94961,703

03,124

18,122

76411,736

2,005137

859,476

330

12.3%910

2020

114,43496,97969,859

06,442

20,678

1,12416,331

3,0601,3321,026

10,455440

1814.3%18,787

2030

110,50586,62158,181

08,148

20,292

68723,197

3,7803,3483,288

11,6171,074

9021.0%49,433

2040

104,43870,48242,866

08,811

18,805

25133,706

4,6444,7887,973

13,0063,025

27032.3%70,071

2050

99,15252,99726,160

08,886

17,950

046,155

5,5085,436

13,70213,920

6,652936

46.6%86,179

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

73,00761,62845,951

01,805

13,872

57910,800

1,42980

9,36200

14.8%

2010

3,1733,109

022

41.60

205191

014

0

3,3783,300

03642

6,211277%1,662

576529

3,198245

13594.6

2020

3,8053,732

043

30.40

390311

080

0

4,1964,043

0122

30

7,287325%1,847

597657

3,988199

14305.1

2030

2,9382,869

053

16.05

575429

0146

0

3,5133,297

0199

16

6,249279%1,612

511710

3,308108

14674.3

2040

2,0411,978

057

6.60

683485

0198

0

2,7252,463

0255

7

4,779213%1,111

364761

2,49351

14583.3

2050

1,1861,116

070

00

707484

0223

0

1,8931,600

0293

0

3,209143%

557197831

1,6221

14182.3

2005

2,0301,962

02048

0

149146

030

2,1792,108

02348

4,429198%1,295

481360

2,049244

13213.4

2010

1,6631,633

3000

1,1971,140

524

27,42819,901

7,44483

0

30,28722,675

7,52683

4

25%

3

2020

1,7751,571

1078018

2,6502,268

35824

30,78022,111

7,722768178

35,20525,950

8,186848221

26%

1,862

2030

1,268934

95127111

4,3213,543

70970

29,32519,738

7,4111,758

418

34,91324,216

8,2151,884

599

31%

5,038

2040

964484101154225

5,7144,2871,134

293

26,42813,406

6,9334,4351,654

33,10618,177

8,1684,5892,172

45%

7,762

2050

5081066

178254

7,0634,5561,545

962

23,2646,1556,1087,0443,956

30,83510,720

7,7207,2225,172

65%

10,344

2005

1,4801,471

900

809809

00

23,22915,971

7,25800

25,51818,251

7,26700

28.5%

table 14.120: china: final energy demandPJ/a

appendix: china energy [r]evolution scenario

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- CH

INA

210

GLOBAL ENERGY [R]EVOLUTIONA SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

appendix: oecd pacific reference scenario

table 14.121: oecd pacific: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.124: oecd pacific: installed capacity GW

table 14.125: oecd pacific: primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.123: oecd pacific: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.122: oecd pacific: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

1,854539135377149

5472

21137

102700

5746

38620

2433

1,9111,259

543141415155

5472180137

102

24700

000

90121

01,700

120.6%

9.4%

2020

2,145659140456107

3552

23151

3510

811

6553

45741

2639

2,2101,425

664143501114

3552233151

351026

911

000

104135

01,972

462.1%

10.5%

2030

2,332713137508

702

64323

1545217

931

7162

49851

2744

2,4021,494

719139557

782

643265154

52172810

31

000

109141

02,152

702.9%

11.0%

2040

2,499766135552

371

71323

157712510

72

7570

53862

2847

2,5741,558

772135605

451

713303157

71252912

72

000

114147

02,313

983.8%

11.8%

2050

2,665868133583

171

73424

16183351113

3

7960

57872

2950

2,7441,672

874133640

251

734338161

8335301313

3

000

119149

02,476

1214.4%

12.3%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

1,726482123351162

6452

21121

30600

5438

36620

2331

1,7801,175

484131387167

6452153121

30

23600

000

84111

01,585

30.2%

8.6%

2010

41481

20.3100

6313

63.83.263

4.51.41.0

00

14137200

86

428290

8224

1076413

63.87463

51

3.7100

6.01.4%

17.3%

2020

470103

21.9127

497

68.93.770

11.97.11.10.40.1

14228210

77

485321105

23135

517

68.9957012

74.4

100

19.24.0%

19.6%

2030

523119

22.8153

395

80.53.871

16.112.1

1.20.50.3

1620

10210

78

538352121

23163

415

80.5106

711612

4.6110

28.55.3%

19.6%

2040

591146

25.7183

263

89.23.872

22.017.9

1.31.10.6

1720

12210

89

608398148

26195

273

89.2120

722218

4.8211

40.46.7%

19.7%

2050

680193

29.6216

151

91.93.974

25.725.0

1.52.00.9

1820

13210

810

697471195

30228

171

91.9134

742625

4.9221

51.67.4%

19.2%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

39472

18.3926816

66.72.955

2.10

1.000

14147200

86

408280

7323997016

66.76255

20

3.3100

2.10.5%

15.2%

2010

39,94633,289

8,6811,6125,811

17,185

5,1501,507

4933642

699237

03.8%

2020

44,32236,002

9,9231,5797,637

16,864

6,0232,297

544126162

1,109355

25.2%

2030

46,21136,39710,091

1,4598,366

16,481

7,0152,799

554187258

1,324472

46.1%

2040

46,71235,622

9,7461,3558,497

16,023

7,7783,312

565256369

1,532583

77.1%

2050

47,02435,140

9,6421,2608,521

15,718

8,0073,877

580299512

1,733743

118.2%

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share

2005

37,03530,831

7,7981,5095,070

16,454

4,9271,277

4361228

601200

03.4%

2010

933478179170103

3

27609

11

960484179179118

2,060134%

312287513944

4

20210.2

2020

1,083613175221

722

3970

2310

1,122620175244

84

2,248146%

316296536

1,0974

20211.1

2030

1,075628162238

461

3960

258

1,114634162263

55

2,253146%

312303544

1,0914

19711.4

2040

1,000600150225

241

3860

266

1,038606150251

31

2,176141%

307304544

1,0173

18811.5

2050

963605140206

110.4

3550

265

998610140232

16

2,127138%

300302544979

3

17811.9

2005

804396167144

924

26509

13

831401168153109

1,895123%

303296478814

4

2009.5

2010

463610

00

179172

52

7,6517,253

3363527

7,8777,461

3513530

5.3%

2020

493513

00

297281

115

8,2377,493

505121118

8,5837,809

528121124

9.0%

2030

513416

01

294272

148

8,6637,634

631185213

9,0087,940

661186221

11.9%

2040

523218

11

298267

1714

9,0037,707

756254286

9,3538,006

791254301

14.4%

2050

522921

12

292251

2120

9,3977,735

895338428

9,7408,015

937339450

17.7%

2005

4536

900

175172

30

7,3186,975

2972818

7,5397,183

3092818

4.7%

table 14.126: oecd pacific: final energy demandPJ/a 2010

25,99722,370

7,2567,091

2612

12712

00.3%

7,3592,604

245149

9680

1,7721,814

3326

128.1%

7,7553,388

31973

8272

2,2901,593

329115

6.0%

1,0834.2%

3,6273,514

9618

2020

28,10324,486

7,8317,363

88101279

290

1.7%

7,9252,890

304226

11589

1,6192,074

38421

6710.6%

8,7303,928

414116

18149

2,3371,887

83202

298.5%

1,7166.1%

3,6173,504

9518

2030

29,52325,759

8,1667,452

122159432

480

2.5%

8,2423,070

338196

13621

1,4522,231

53490129

12.4%

9,3514,245

468146

25130

2,3092,059

132285

4510.2%

2,1857.4%

3,7653,647

9918

2040

30,65526,762

8,4127,419

164225603

711

3.5%

8,4823,210

377166

14579

1,3612,371

68557169

14.0%

9,8694,515

531180

36127

2,2112,217

185367

6712.0%

2,6688.7%

3,8933,771

10319

2050

31,79527,772

8,6447,371

220281772

951

4.4%

8,7373,345

412139

15456

1,3512,502

94630221

15.7%

10,3914,796

591201

48105

2,0692,389

244462125

14.2%

3,21910.1%

4,0233,897

10620

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

24,66921,322

6,7166,613

151

8770

0.1%

6,8472,297

198163

7662

1,8001,629

0289

67.3%

7,7603,322

28654

5297

2,4321,536

288013

5.3%

9193.7%

3,3473,242

8816

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- OE

CD

PA

CIF

IC

211

2010

25,74622,243

7,2566,984

26116129

130

1.8%

7,1592,484

255183

20685

1,6941,717

2385

89.4%

7,8283,482

358104

19219

2,2431,584

37137

247.3%

1,3765.3%

3,5033,394

9217

2020

25,13421,678

6,5155,699

72437302

615

7.7%

7,2512,655

533400115437

1,2411,880

38553

4717.7%

7,9123,617

727212111

161,6351,639

236391166

20.6%

3,41513.6%

3,4563,348

9117

2030

23,70220,397

5,7744,386

84721567180

1615.7%

6,9132,585

821460218324710

1,921147687

8028.3%

7,7103,6121,147

348229

8851

1,483513646249

36.1%

5,64423.8%

3,3053,202

8716

2040

21,64518,513

5,0332,888

95999

1,025515

2630.3%

6,2842,4041,207

502325110207

1,815232894119

44.2%

7,1963,3711,692

428338

6299

1,093976744278

56.0%

8,33238.5%

3,1323,034

8315

2050

19,62916,669

4,0351,496

961,0041,4161,108

2452.8%

5,7232,1931,716

514398

075

1,615297906123

60.1%

6,9113,2962,579

530453

472

1501,637

916307

85.3%

11,46358.4%

2,9602,868

7814

Total (incl. non-energy use)Total (energy use)TransportOil productsNatural gasBiofuelsElectricity

RES electricityHydrogenRES share Transport

IndustryElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Industry

Other SectorsElectricity

RES electricityDistrict heat

RES district heatCoalOil productsGasSolarBiomass and wasteGeothermalRES share Other Sectors

Total RESRES share

Non energy useOilGasCoal

2005

24,66921,322

6,7166,613

151

8770

0.1%

6,8472,297

198163

7662

1,8001,629

0289

67.3%

7,7603,322

28654

5297

2,4321,536

288013

5.3%

9193.7%

3,3473,242

8816

District heating plantsFossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Heat from CHP Fossil fuelsBiomassGeothermal

Direct heating1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

Total heat supply1)

Fossil fuelsBiomassSolar collectorsGeothermal

RES share (including RES electricity)‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

1) heat from electricity (direct and from electric heat pumps) not included; covered in the model under ‘electric appliances’

Condensation power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOil

CO2 emissions electricity & steam generationCoalLigniteGasOil & diesel

CO2 emissions by sector% of 1990 emissionsIndustryOther sectorsTransportElectricity & steam generationDistrict heating

Population (Mill.)CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

table 14.127: oecd pacific: electricity generationTWh/a

table 14.130: oecd pacific: installed capacity GW

table 14.131: oecd pacific: primary energy demand PJ/A

table 14.129: oecd pacific: CO2 emissionsMILL t/a

table 14.128: oecd pacific: heat supplyPJ/A

2010

1,842521122413145

5445

28138

117710

6037

41631

2535

1,9021,261

523129454151

5445196138

117

31810

000

88.8120.1

01,693

181.0%

10.3%

7

2020

1,951538

85563

862

28336

164120

4914

83

9424

684

133

3757

2,0451,351

54089

63190

2283411164120

494917

83

000

94.2122.5

21,826

1728.4%

20.1%

145

2030

1,972500

33610

441

16441

177256

95181914

12400

771

396

4975

2,0961,266

50033

68745

1164665177256

9580241914

000

91.9118.8

61,879

36517.4%

31.8%

273

2040

1,930323

7580

200

4546

187465163

213637

16700

690

8513

7196

2,097999323

7649

200

451,053

187465163131

343637

000

87.0111.0

101,889

66531.7%

50.2%

424

2050

1,885118

0285

200

51194811281

244772

22600

540

14725

113113

2,111459118

0339

200

1,652194811281198

494772

000

81.0103.0

91,918

1,16455.1%

78.3%

558

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermalCHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

ImportImport RES

ExportDistribution lossesOwn consumption electricityElectricity for hydrogen productionFinal energy consumption (electricity)

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

1,726482123351162

6452

21121

30600

5438

36620

2331

1,7801,175

484131387167

6452153121

30

23600

000

84111

01,585

30.2%

8.6%

2010

41878

18.3109

6112

60.14.264

5.05.31.00.2

0

14148110

86

432292

7922

1176212

60.18064

555100

10.32.4%

18.5%

2020

49784

13.3157

395

35.35.976

40.835.1

1.92.60.9

1902

13121

910

515314

8415

16940

535.3166

764135

8231

76.814.9%

32.2%

2030

56483

5.5183

243

20.56.781

79.367.9

2.43.24.0

2400

16071

1113

588316

836

20025

320.5252

81796813

334

151.125.7%

42.9%

2040

64861

1.3192

140.15.67.586

144.0116.4

2.85.7

10.6

3200

150

142

1517

679285

611

20814

05.6

38986

144116

2256

11

271.039.9%

57.3%

2050

71426

0106

200

8.489

251.1200.7

3.27.2

20.6

4100

120

254

2219

754146

260

118200

60989

251201

3377

21

472.462.6%

80.7%

Power plantsCoalLigniteGasOilDieselNuclearBiomassHydroWindPVGeothermalSolar thermal power plantsOcean energy

Combined heat & power productionCoalLigniteGasOilBiomassGeothermal

CHP by producerMain activity producersAutoproducers

Total generationFossil

CoalLigniteGasOilDiesel

NuclearRenewables

HydroWindPVBiomassGeothermalSolar thermalOcean energy

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean)Share of fluctuating RES

RES share

2005

39472

18.3926816

66.72.955

2.10

1.000

14147200

86

408280

7323997016

66.76255

20

3.3100

2.10.5%

15.2%

2010

39,54532,753

8,4431,4576,055

16,798

4,8551,936

4974070

1,070260

04.9%

401

2020

38,95531,213

8,391959

8,34613,518

3,0884,654

590432514

2,347760

1111.9%5,367

2030

35,62226,540

7,590351

8,56110,038

1,7897,293

637922

1,1803,4001,104

5020.5%10,588

2040

30,13119,309

5,35370

7,0116,875

49110,331

6731,6742,0554,3391,457

13334.3%16,582

2050

24,95211,227

3,4020

3,1774,647

013,725

6982,9203,2024,7201,927

25955.0%22,072

TotalFossilHard coalLigniteNatural gasCrude oil

NuclearRenewablesHydroWindSolarBiomassGeothermalOcean EnergyRES share‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

2005

37,03530,831

7,7981,5095,070

16,454

4,9271,277

4361228

601200

03.4%

2010

912462

161.6186

100.43

2650

1110

938466162196114

2,016131%

301278505923

9

20210

2020

939501

106.3272

58.11

4330

355

982503106307

65

1,858120%

264218415955

7

2029.2

2030

795440

39.0286

29.00.7

4000

391

835440

39325

31

1,49997%211150321813

4

1977.6

2040

5102537.8

23613.2

0

3400

340

544253

8270

14

97063%144

86214526

1

1885.1

2050

18482

01011.3

0

2500

250

20982

0126

1

43328%108

16113196

0

1782.4

2005

804396167144

924

26509

13

831401168153109

1,895123%

303296478814

4

2009.5

2010

1158528

20

178167

65

7,5107,009

4214040

7,8037,262

4554244

7%

73

2020

22462

1143414

396328

3830

7,3445,943

766275360

7,9636,333

918309404

20%

619

2030

33150

149109

23

487314115

58

6,9324,6191,087

660566

7,7514,9831,351

769647

36%

1,258

2040

3263

163130

29

619267237115

6,3283,0931,3391,208

688

7,2733,3631,7381,339

833

54%

2,080

2050

2180

1058726

843195422226

5,8171,6421,4941,934

748

6,8781,8372,0202,0211,000

73%

2,862

2005

4536

900

175172

30

7,3186,975

2972818

7,5397,183

3092818

4.7%

table 14.132: oecd pacific: final energy demandPJ/a

appendix: oecd pacific energy [r]evolution scenario

14

glo

ssary &

ap

pen

dix

|A

PP

EN

DIX

- OE

CD

PA

CIF

IC

Greenpeace is a global organisation that uses non-violent directaction to tackle the most crucial threats to our planet’s biodiversityand environment. Greenpeace is a non-profit organisation, present in40 countries across Europe, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific. It speaks for 2.8 million supporters worldwide, and inspires manymillions more to take action every day. To maintain itsindependence, Greenpeace does not accept donations fromgovernments or corporations but relies on contributions fromindividual supporters and foundation grants.

Greenpeace has been campaigning against environmentaldegradation since 1971 when a small boat of volunteers andjournalists sailed into Amchitka, an area west of Alaska, where theUS Government was conducting underground nuclear tests. Thistradition of ‘bearing witness’ in a non-violent manner continuestoday, and ships are an important part of all its campaign work.

Greenpeace InternationalOttho Heldringstraat 5, 1066 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlandst +31 20 718 2000 f +31 20 514 8151sven.teske@greenpeace.org www.greenpeace.org

european renewable energy council - [EREC]Created on 13 April 2000, the European Renewable Energy Council(EREC) is the umbrella organisation of the European renewableenergy industry, trade and research associations active in thesectors of bioenergy, geothermal, ocean, small hydropower, solarelectricity, solar thermal and wind energy. EREC represents thus 40 billion € turnover and provides jobs to around 350,000 people!

EREC is composed of the following non-profit associations andfederations: AEBIOM (European Biomass Association); eBIO(European Bioethanol Fuel Association); EGEC (EuropeanGeothermal Energy Council); EPIA (European Photovoltaic IndustryAssociation); ESHA (European Small Hydropower Association);ESTIF (European Solar Thermal Industry Federation); EUBIA(European Biomass Industry Association); EWEA (European WindEnergy Association); EUREC Agency (European Association ofRenewable Energy Research Centers); EREF (European RenewableEnergies Federation); EU-OEA (European Ocean Energy Association);ESTELA (European Solar Thermal Electricity Association) andAssociate Member: EBB (European Biodiesel Board)

EREC European Renewable Energy CouncilRenewable Energy House, 63-67 rue d’Arlon, B-1040 Brussels, Belgiumt +32 2 546 1933 f+32 2 546 1934erec@erec.org www.erec.org

energy[r]evolution

© G

RE

EN

PE

AC

E/N

ICK

CO

BB

ING

image ICEBERGS CALVING FROM THE ILUISSAT GLACIER IN GREENLAND. MEASUREMENTS OF THE MELT LAKES ON THE GREENLAND ICE SHEET SHOW ITS VULNERABILITY TO WARMING TEMPERATURES.