Global Energy Assessment: Exploring pathways to a more

sustainable future

Anand Patwardhan

Clean Energy Ministerial

April 2013

www.GlobalEnergyAssessment.org

● Total Effort: 300 Authors; 200 Reviewers

> 6 years >> 6m € and >> 100 p-years

● # of Reviewer comments: >6000

● # of Language Editors:15

● # of Copy Editors:15

● # of Figures: ~ 650

● # of Tables: ~ 380

● # of References: >7000

● # of Pages (Published): ~1864 Pages

● Single volume of 5.5 kg

2

External Funding Partners ● Austrian Development Agency (ADA)

● Climate Works Foundation

● Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH

● First Solar Inc.

● Global Environment Facility (GEF) through UNIDO

● Italian Ministry for the Environment and Territory

● Petrobras

● Research Council of Norway

● Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS)

● Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS) and Swedish Energy Agency

● United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

● United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

● United Nations Foundation (UNF)

● United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)

● US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)

● US Department of Energy (DOE) through Global Environment and Technology Foundation

● World Bank/ESMAP

● World Energy Council (WEC)

3

GEA Council • Ged Davis – GEA Co-President • José Goldemberg – GEA Co-President; Professor Emeritus, University of São Paulo • Michael Ahearn, First Solar Inc. • Dan Arvizu, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) • Monique Barbut, Global Environment Facility (GEF) • Corrado Clini, Italian Ministry for the Environment and Territory • Robert Corell, Global Environment and Technology Foundation (GETF) • Fei FENG, Development Research Centre (DRC) of the State Council of China, China • Christoph Frei, World Energy Council (WEC) • Irene Giner-Reichl, Foreign Ministry of Austria • Pavel Kabat, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) • Tomas Kåberger, formerly Swedish Energy Agency • Olav Kjørven, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) • Manfred Konukiewitz, German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) • Celso Fernando Lucchesi, Petrobras • Kirit Parikh, formerly Indian Planning Commission and Integrated Research and Action for Development (IRADe) • Jamal Saghir, World Bank • John Schellnhuber, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research; and International Council for Science (ICSU) • Nikhil Seth, Division for Sustainable Development, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

(UNDESA) • Achim Steiner, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) • Björn Stigson, formerly World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) • Claude Turmes, Member of the European Parliament • Robert Watson, Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Tyndall Centre at the University of

East Anglia • Anders Wijkman, formerly Member of the European Parliament • Timothy E. Wirth, United Nations Foundation • Kandeh Yumkella, United Nations Industrial Development Organization • Zhou Dadi, Energy Research Institute, China

4

GEA Executive Committee • Thomas B. Johansson – (Co-Chair) Lund University; Sweden • Anand Patwardhan – (Co-Chair) Shailesh J Mehta School of Management, IIT-Bombay; India • Nebojsa Nakicenovic – (Director) IIASA and Vienna University of Technology; Austria • Luis Gomez-Echeverri – (Associate Director) IIASA; Colombia • Stephen Karekezi – African Energy Policy Research Network; Kenya (Ch2: Energy, Poverty, and Development) • Susan McDade - United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); United States (Ch2: Energy, Poverty, and Development) • He Kebin – Tsinghua University; China (Ch3: Energy and Environment) • Johan Rockström – Stockholm Environment Institute; Sweden (Ch3: Energy and Environment) • Lisa Emberson Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, United Kingdom (Ch3: Energy and Environment) • Kirk Smith – University of California, Berkeley; United States (Ch4: Energy and Health) • Aleh Cherp – Central European University; Belarus (Ch5: Energy and Security) • Kurt Yeager – Electric Power Research Institute; United States (Ch 6: Energy and Economy) • Hans-Holger Rogner – International Atomic Energy Agency; Germany (Ch7: Energy Resources and Potentials) • Rangan Banerjee – ITT Bombay; India (Ch8: Energy End-Use: Industry) • Suzana Kahn Ribeiro – Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; Brazil (Ch9: Energy End-Use: Transport) • Diana Urge-Vorsatz – Central European University; Budapest (Ch10: Energy End-Use: Buildings) • Wim Turkenburg – Utrecht University; Netherlands (Ch11: Renewable Energy) • Li Zheng – Tsinghua University; China (Ch12: Fossil Energy) • Eric Larson – Princeton University and Climate Central; United States (Ch12: Fossil Energy) • Sally Benson – Stanford University; United States (Ch13: Carbon Capture and Storage) • Frank von Hippel – Princeton University; United States (Ch14: Nuclear Energy) • Robert Schock – World Energy Council and Center for Global Security Research; United States (Ch15: Energy Supply Systems) • Ralph Sims – Massey University; New Zealand (Ch15: Energy Supply Systems) • Anand Patwardhan – Shailesh J Mehta School of Management, IIT-Bombay; India (Ch16: Transitions in Energy Systems) • Keywan Riahi – IIASA; Austria (Ch17: Energy Pathways for Sustainable Development) • Arnulf Grubler – IIASA and Yale Univ.; Austria (Ch18: Urbanization Energy Systems; and Ch24: Policies for Technology Innovation) • Abeeku Brew-Hammond – Kwame Nkrumah Univ. of Science & Tech.; Ghana (Ch19: Energy Access for Development) • Shonali Pachauri – IIASA; India (Ch19: Energy Access for Development) • Suani T. Coelho – CENBIO-Brazilian Reference Center on Biomass; Brazil (Ch20: Land and Water: Linkages to Bioenergy) • Joyashree Roy – Jadavpur University; India (Ch21: Lifestyles, Well Being and Energy) • Mark Jaccard – Simon Fraser Univ.; Canada (Ch22: Policies for Energy System Transformations: Objectives and Instruments) • Daniel Bouille – Bariloche Foundation; Argentina (Ch23: Policies for Energy Access) • Lynn Mytelka – UNU-MERIT; Canada (Ch25: Policies for Capacity Development)

5

Key ideas • The development of pathways that simultaneously address

multiple energy challenges – Energy access, energy security, climate protection and reducing

environmental impacts and ancillary risks

• There are many such viable pathways with different combinations of energy supply and demand options – Rapidly increase in renewable energy technologies and in energy

efficiency are common elements in all pathways

• Early action is important for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies – Avoiding the risk of lock-in, supporting learning to drive costs down

and redirecting RD&D to widen the menu of technology options

• Policy integration enables multiple entry points for change – Connecting energy and non-energy policies

6

Unre

str

icte

d P

ort

folio

No

Nucl

ear

No

Bio

CC

SN

o S

inks

Lim

ited B

io-e

ner

gy

Lim

ited R

enew

able

sN

o C

CS

No

Nucl

ear &

CC

SLim

. Bio

-energ

y &

Renew

ab

les

No

Bio

CC

S, S

ink &

lim

Bio

-energ

y

Unre

str

icte

d P

ort

folio

No

Nucl

ear

No

Bio

CC

SN

o S

inks

Lim

ited B

io-e

ner

gy

Lim

ited R

enew

able

sN

o C

CS

No

Nucl

ear &

CC

SLim

. Bio

-energ

y &

Renew

ab

les

No

Bio

CC

S, S

ink &

lim

Bio

-energ

y

Advanced

transportation

Conventional

transportation

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

EJ

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200Geothermal

Solar

Wind

Hydro

Nuclear

Gas wCCS

Gas woCCS

Oil

Coal wCCS

Coal woCCS

Biomass wCCS

Biomass woCCS

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

EJ

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200Geothermal

Solar

Wind

Hydro

Nuclear

Gas wCCS

Gas woCCS

Oil

Coal wCCS

Coal woCCS

Biomass wCCS

Biomass woCCS

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

EJ

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200Geothermal

Solar

Wind

Hydro

Nuclear

Gas wCCS

Gas woCCS

Oil

Coal wCCS

Coal woCCS

Biomass wCCS

Biomass woCCS

Microchip

Commercial

aviation

TelevisionVacuum

tubeGasoline

engineElectric

motorSteam

engine

Nuclear

energy

Microchip

Commercial

aviation

TelevisionVacuum

tubeGasoline

engineElectric

motorSteam

engine

Nuclear

energy

Microchip

Commercial

aviation

TelevisionVacuum

tubeGasoline

engineElectric

motorSteam

engine

Nuclear

energy

GEA – Efficiency

GEA – Mix

GEA – Supply

X X X XX X X

X

X X X X

X

X

X X

X X X

• 60+ pathways grouped into 3 broad clusters – efficiency focus, large heterogeneity, high demand; sensitivity analyses to evaluate different situations

• Common elements – ↑ Energy efficiency

– ↑ Renewable energy

– Modernization of fossil fuel system

– Efficiency focus creates supply-side flexibility

7

GEA-Mix

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

EJ

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

GEA-Supply

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

EJ

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2500

GEA-Efficiency

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

EJ

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Efficiency standards and regulations:Buildings:

•factor 4 improvement by 2050 (global retrofit rate of 3%/year)

Transport:

•aggressive efficiency standards (freight & passenger transport)

•electric vehicles

•switch to public transport & reduce demand for mobility

Industry:

•rapid adoption of best available technology

•retrofit of existing plants

•enhanced recycling

•lifecycle product design, etc..

Nuclear phase-out

Fossil CCS

(bridging technology)

Bio-CCS for liquid fuels & negative emissions (long-term)

Transition to renewables on global scale

(90% share by 2100)

Oil phase-out

Intermediate efficiency focus

Regionally diverse supply systems:

2/3 in Asia

2/3 in Asia, Middle East and Africa

about half in OECD

Coal-CCS

(predominantly Asia)

Oil phase-out

(globally)

Bio-CCS for liquid fuels & negative emissions (long-term)

(all regions)

Modest efficiency focus

Rapid up-scaling of all supply-options including

renewables, nuclear and CCS

Large contribution in the GEA-supply central case

(however, transition also feasible without nuclear)

Oil phase-out

CCS mandatory

at high demand

Bio-CCS for liquid fuels & negative emissions (long-term)

Savings

Geothermal

Solar

Wind

Hydro

Nuclear

Gas wCCS

Gas woCCS

Oil

Coal wCCS

Coal woCCS

Biomass wCCS

Biomass woCCS

Savings

Geothermal

Solar

Wind

Hydro

Nuclear

Gas wCCS

Gas woCCS

Oil

Coal wCCS

Coal woCCS

Biomass wCCS

Biomass woCCS

Savings

Geothermal

Solar

Wind

Hydro

Nuclear

Gas wCCS

Gas woCCS

Oil

Coal wCCS

Coal woCCS

Biomass wCCS

Biomass woCCS

8

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

EJ

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200 Savings

Other renewables

Nuclear

Gas

Oil

Coal

Biomass

Biomass

Coal

Renewables

Nuclear

Oil

Gas

Global Primary Energy no CCS, no Nuclear

Energy savings (efficiency, conservation,

and behavior)

~40% improvement by 2030

~35% renewables by 2030

Oil phase-out (necessary)

Nuclear phase-out (choice)

Source: Riahi et al, 2012 9

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

EJ

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200 Savings

Other renewables

Nuclear

Gas

Oil

Coal

Biomass

Biomass

Coal

Renewables

Nuclear

Oil

Gas

Global Primary Energy lim. Bioenergy, lim. Intermittent REN

Energy savings (efficiency, conservation,

and behavior)

~40% improvement by 2030

~35% renewables by 2030

Oil phase-out (necessary)

Limited Intermittent REN

Limited Bioenergy

Bio-CCS – “negative CO2”

Nat-gas-CCS

Coal-CCS

Source: Riahi et al, 2011 10

Early action to avoid lock-in: The lock-in risk for Western Europe

Thermal Comfort Final Energy, suboptimal scenario

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

20

05

20

10

20

15

20

20

20

25

20

30

20

35

20

40

20

45

20

50

Energy, PWh/year

Adv New

New

Adv Ret

Retrofit

Standard

26.1%

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

20

05

20

10

20

15

20

20

20

25

20

30

20

35

20

40

20

45

20

50

Energy, PWh/year

Adv New

New

Adv Ret

Retrofit

Standard

68.7%

Thermal Comfort Final Energy, state-of-the-art scenario

Source: GEA Ch10 11

Supply Technologies Cost Trends

Source: GEA, Chapter 24, 2012 and Grubler and Wilson 2012, in press 12

IEA Countries Public Energy R&D

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

Mil

lio

n U

S$2008 P

PP

Other

Efficiency

Renewables

Fossil Fuels

Fusion

Nuclear w/o fusion

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

MIN Mean Max 1974-2008 2008

Nuclear

Renewables

Fossil Fuels

Other

EnergyEfficiency

Min Mean Max

In future mitigation scenarios

(technology needs portfolio)

1974-2008 2008

public energy R&D

(past, current R&D portfolio)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

MIN Mean Max 1974-2008 2008

Nuclear

Renewables

Fossil Fuels

Other

EnergyEfficiency

Min Mean Max

In future mitigation scenarios

(technology needs portfolio)

1974-2008 2008

public energy R&D

(past, current R&D portfolio)

future technology needs

share in 2000-2100 cum.

emission reduction

past and current R&D

into developing

improved technologies,

shares by technology

Public Sector Energy RD&D in IEA

Member countries by major technology

group

Distribution of past and current energy

R&D as compared to future technology

needs from the pathways analysis

New Directions for R&D

Source: Grubler et al, 2012 13

Policy Integration at the Urban Scale

Simulated energy use for an urban settlement of 20,000 inhabitants

using the SimCity Model combining spatially explicit models of

urban form, density, and energy infrastructures, with energy

systems optimization.

Source: Grubler et al, 2012 14

Concluding thoughts • Heterogeneity in circumstances, contexts and priorities will require

variety in policy “packages”. Recognition of multiple benefits allows different entry points for change

• Technology is important, but equally important to address critical issues related to implementation: institutions, consumer preferences & market behavior, skills & capacities

• Early action is essential to avoid negative lock-in, create positive lock in and accelerate the technology cycle

• Energy policies need to be coordinated with policies in sectors such as industry, buildings, urbanization, transport, health environment etc. to have real impact

• Next steps: – While the GEA is complete, and the assessment report has its own value, there is a

need for ongoing scientific and technical input into the policy process at different levels

– Could leverage capabilities of institutions such as IIASA to serve as anchors around which the broader scientific community is mobilized to address policy questions

15

www.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/ene/geadb

GEA Database

16