How Sustainable is India’s Energy System : A Life cycle andHow Sustainable is India’s Energy System : A Life-cycle and Modeling Perspective

By

Diptiranjan MahapatraVisiting Researcher, Hiroshima University

04th June10, NIES04 June10, NIES

“Following up program for young researchers leading the sustainable Asia” Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation (IDEC)

A short Introduction • PhD 2009 Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad(IIMA) India in Energy• PhD 2009, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad(IIMA), India, in Energy

& Environment Policy (www.iimahd.ernet.in)

• Prior to this 10 years in Energy / Infrastructure Industry• Prior to this – 10 years in Energy / Infrastructure Industry

• Current Affiliation – Adani Institute of Infrastructure Management

(www aiim ac in)(www.aiim.ac.in)

– A start-up b-school with Energy & Infra Focus MBA

• Research Skills• Research Skills

– Life Cycle Analysis & Monetization of externalities

– Energy-Environment-Economy Modeling– Energy-Environment-Economy Modeling

– Scenario Analysis

– GIS based spatial analysisGIS based spatial analysis

– Simulation

A short Introduction • Research Interest

E & Cli t P li– Energy & Climate Policy

– Local Pollution (SOx, NOx, SPM etc.)Technology Policy

– Carbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS)

– Sustainability - How firms in developing economies will

adapt and adopt environmental practices; If not – why?adapt and adopt environmental practices; If not – why?

– Infrastructure and Regulations

– NOC vs. IOC and resource nationalism

Context• Energy production and consumption: unintended impacts• Energy production and consumption: unintended impacts

perturb market equilibrium : Getting the price right

• Fundamental structural change in energy supply systemalong with climate regimealong with climate regime

• Structural change has to be embedded into an economicStructural change has to be embedded into an economic,social and ecological framework (TBL framework)

• Evaluation of existing taxes or permit system / designingnew ones

Assisting market processes– Assisting market processes– Making effective social choices

Context• ... pricing of energy production and use should reflect the full costs of thep g f gy p f f f

associated environmental problems. The concept of full social cost pricing is a goaltowards which to strive. Including all social, environmental, and other costs inenergy prices would provide consumers and producers with the appropriateinformation to decide about fuel mix, new investments, and research anddevelopment (National Academy of Sciences, 1991, p. 73 in Viscusi et al., 1994)

• .. even though monetary estimates of external cost may not be precise and itspartial equilibrium framework is less than perfect, ``full social cost pricing'' in theenergy sector is a positive contribution to greater economic welfare (Hall, 1990 inLawrey, 1999)

• The US National Research Council has just published a study on the hidden healthand environmental costs of energy production and consumption in the USA. It putthese costs at $120 billion in 2005 The study - entitled Hidden Costs of Energy:Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use - was conducted at therequest of Congress and examines external energy costs in the USA.

Research Questions1. How do market prices compare with the life cycle costs for major primaryp p y j p y

energy resources (coal, natural gas, nuclear and biomass) in India ?

2 Wh t ld b th l t ilib i t j t i f I di d2. What would be the long-term energy equilibrium trajectories for India underbusiness-as-usual (BAU) policy regime?

3. How could external costs from life cycle assessment for different primaryenergy resources be internalized in energy market?

4. How would policies based on life cycle cost policies alter long-term energymarket equilibrium vis-à-vis BAU trajectory in India?

5. Once external costs are internalized through alternate packages of policies,d i t t h d th i t i di t likmeasures, and instruments, how do they impact indicators like energy

security, energy access and sustainability?

Framework of AnalysisResearch Questions

External Cost of Major Fuels

BAU Energy Equilibrium

Q2Impact on indicators like energy security, energy

Q1 access and sustainability Q5Internalization of

External CostQ3

Comparison of BAU versus External Cost

ScenariosScenariosQ4

MethodologyMethodology

Fuel Cycle Analysis Energy System Case AnalysisFuel Cycle AnalysisExternE (2005)

Energy System Modeling with

Scenario Analysis

Case Analysis

Methodology for RQ1E ternalit of Energ (E ternE)• Externality of Energy (ExternE)

– European Commission began as a collaborative project with the

US partners Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and

Resources for the Future (RFF)

• Environmental impacts may be valuedp y

– Control cost ( Upstream i.e. Mining plus Transport)

– Damage cost.( Power Generation )

– Using other country’s figure (Wang and Nakata, 2007) (Renewables)g y g ( g , ) ( )

Data Collection• Primary Datay

– Site Visits, Interviews, Emails and Tele-talk• Coal MCL mines ; GSECL Corporate officeCoal MCL mines ; GSECL Corporate office

• Nuclear UCIL mines ; Nuclear Power plant at Kakrapar, Surat

• Natural Gas PLL-LNG terminal ; GSECL Corporate Officep

• Secondary Data

– Online databases (CMIE Infraline)Online databases (CMIE, Infraline)

– Energy Markets Database (BP, IEA, DOE/EIA)

T h l D t b ( DOE / EIA )– Technology Database ( DOE / EIA )

– Annual Reports, Publications & Websites (Planning Commission

– & Various central and state Ministries)

• Critical Parameters – DRF, VoL, Source Apportionment

Research Question-1

How do market prices compare with the life cycle costs for major primary energy resources (coal,

t l l d bi ) i I di ?natural gas, nuclear and biomass) in India ?

External Cost of Major Fuels

Q1

Fuel Cycle AnalysisExternE (2005)

Boundary Setting

Upstream Transportation Power GenerationProcess Generation

Coal Mining Rail Subcritical PCNatural Gas Exploration LNG plus Pipe CCGTNatural Gas Exploration LNG plus Pipe CCGTNuclear Mining Truck PHWRBagasse Farming Tractor CogenerationWind Manufacturing S-66 and S-70 Solar Manufacturing ISCC

Emission related Impacts

Coal Fuel Cycle Analysis• Coal Mines & Transport

!(!(

• Coal Mines & Transport– Dust Generation

• Ghose 2007 5419 kg / day• Ghose, 2007 – 5419 kg / day

– Mines Fire ( Report7 of Coal (Lok Sabha, 2006):Rs.395 crore for shifting and rehabilitation,

dealing with fire and stabilization of unstable area )

– Emission from POL consumption to produce Coal

– Fugitive Emission

– Control Cost

• Coal Power Generation– Local Damage PM10 Impact

– Radioactive Damage (Mandal, Dasgupta and Mandal, 2006; Lalit, Ramanchandra and

Mishra, 1986)

– Global Warming Damage

Natural Gas Fuel Cycle Analysis!(!(

• Natural Gas Exploration & Transport

– Emission during exploration (Oil and Gas Producersg p (

(OGP) report, 2006)

Emission LNG life cycle (LNG : Indigenous 50:50 )– Emission LNG life cycle (LNG : Indigenous 50:50 )

• Power generation

– Fugitive Emission

– Local Damage: NOx impact

– Global Damage– Global Damage

Nuclear Fuel Cycle Analysis• Uranium Mines & Transport

!(!(

p• Dust Emission• Effluent Discharge• Radiation Dose• Radiation Dose

– Activity content 4000 Bq · kg–1 versus normal soil of 40 Bq · kg–1; Radonemanation 222Rn from the tailings average around was 1.5 Bq · m–2 · s–1compared to an acceptable limit of 0.7 (comm with BARC official)compared to an acceptable limit of 0.7 (comm with BARC official)

– Jha, Khan and Mishra (2000a); Jha, Khan and Mishra(2000b), Khan et al.,2006; Mahur et al., (2008)

• CO2 emission (Mudd and Diesendorf, 2007)CO2 emission (Mudd and Diesendorf, 2007)• Control Cost

• Power generation– Radio active Nuclide emission through HEPA

• Tritium (3 H), Fission Product Noble Gases (FPNG) like Xenon (135 Xe),Krypton (85 Kr) etc., radioactive iodine (131 I) and radioactive PM < 0.2μ(NEERI 1992) Details(NEERI, 1992) Details

• French Fuel Cycle

Bagasse, Wind and Solar Fuel Cycle• Bagasse

!(!(

• Bagasse– Sugarcane Farming, Agricultural Operation & Transport.

Methane and N O emissions from the b rning of s gar cane trash before har esting• Methane and N2O emissions from the burning of sugar cane trash before harvesting

• N2O soil emissions; and methane emissions from bagasse burning in boilers

• The annual diesel oil consumption in agricultural operations and in harvesting

• Transportation - distance of reference cogeneration plant and cane procurementcentre : 300km

P G ti– Power Generation• Assumption: 4.1kg of sugarcane is required to generate 1kg of bagasse and to

generate 1kWh, 2.7 kg of bagasse and 6kg of steam are required

(Macedo, 2004)

• Wind & Solar.– No upstream processes

– Data from other country

External Costs : SummaryType External Cost External cost as % ofCost of GenerationType External Cost External cost as % of

Cost of Generation(Paisa / kWh) Min Max

Coal Pithead 87.28 271.5

Cost of Generation (Paisa / kWh)

Coal Non-Pithead 199.4 214.29 482.64 93%

Gas 36.4 105.65 554 34%

Nuclear 11.3 139 208 8%

Source : Cost of generation has been retrieved from Infraline / CEA website

Wind 5.94 200 250 3%

Solar 12.7 800 1600 2%Bagasse 14.05 200 280 7%

Sim lation ith E ternal Cost for S bCr Coalg Simulation with External Cost for SubCr Coal

8%

10%

12%

n

4%

6%

8%D

istr

ibut

ion

With Ext CostW/o Ext Cost

Simulation0%

2%

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

COE in Rs / kWh

Using External Costs in Energy Modelling

E t l C tExternal Cost from answer

to RQ1

Current Energy

Equilibrium +Energy System

q

System Model

New Energy Equilibrium (RQ 2,3,4)

Policy RecommendationPolicy Recommendation

Research Questions 2,3,4

2 Wh ld b h l2. What would be the long-termenergy equilibrium trajectories forIndia under business-as-usual

BAU Energy Equilibrium

Q2

(BAU) policy regime?3. How could external costs from life

l t f diff t

Q

Internalization of External Cost

cycle assessment for differentprimary energy resources beinternalized in energy market?

Q3

Comparison of BAU

4. How would policies based on lifecycle cost alter long-term energymarket equilibrium vis à vis BAU

versus External Cost Scenarios

Q4

market equilibrium vis-à-vis BAUtrajectory in India?

Energy System Modeling withModeling with

Scenario Analysis

Long-term Supply & Demand Technology-Mix, Fuel-Mix, Emission, Cost

Integrated Bottom-Up Energy Modeling System

ANSWER MARKAL (MARKet ALlocation) Energy Optimization Model T h l D iliTechnology Detailing

Transport Agriculture Residential CommercialIndustry

End-use Sub-Sector Models

Transport Agriculture Residential CommercialIndustry

Urban Rural Steel

CementRoad Rail

Sugar

Ship Air

Aluminum Chlor-Alkali PaperBrickTextiles Fertilizer Others

End Use DemandsLong-Term Demand Projection based on GDP

End-Use Demands

Business As Usual (BAU) Assumptions• Story-line for the BAU scenario refers to the B2 scenario of IPCC/SRES

Y GDP (2005 i ) P l ti P i d G th t

Story line for the BAU scenario refers to the B2 scenario of IPCC/SRES

• MacroeconomicYear GDP (2005 prices) Population Period Growth rate

(Bill. Rs.) (Million) GDP Population 2005 32833 1103 2005-30 8.1% 1.1% 2030 229573 1449 2030-50 5.9% 0.5%2050 774673 1593 2005-50 7.1% 0.8%

E P i• Energy Prices

– Ministry & Infraline Website – Imported – IEA – Supply Curves– Supply Curves

• Carbon Prices– outputs from global Second Generation Model (SGM) results (Edmonds, 2007)outputs from global Second Generation Model (SGM) results (Edmonds, 2007)

Scenario ArchitectureGlobal Damage Scenario

Local Damage Scenario (LDS)

External fuel life-cycle costs

Global Damage Scenario (GDS)

External fuel life-cycle costs, local air pollution (SO2 NOx)

Business As Usual

External fuel life cycle costs, local air pollution (SO2, NOx)

internalized

local air pollution (SO2, NOx)and emissions causing global climate change (CO2) @ 650

ppmvBusiness As Usual

(BAU)GDP- 8% CAGR 2005-50

No local, No global externalities; Story-line forexternalities; Story line for

the Baseline scenario refers to the B2 scenario

of IPCC/SRES

High Carbon Scenario Nuclear Cooperation Scenario

(NUCC)

Impact analysis of Indo-US 123

g(HIGHCARB)

External fuel life-cycle costs, local air pollution (SO2, NOx)and emissions causing global p y

Agreement g g

climate change (CO2) @ 550 ppmv

External costs representation in MARKALCoal Power External Cost Natural Gas Power External CostCoal Power External Cost

400.00

500.00

600.00

/ PJ

2010 w /o CO2 2050 w /o CO2

2010 w ith CO2 2050 w ith CO2

150 00

200.00

250.00

PJ

2010 w /o CO2 2050 w /o CO2

2010 w ith CO2 2050 w ith CO2

100.00

200.00

300.00

Mill

ion

Rs

/

50.00

100.00

150.00

Mill

ion

Rs

/ P

0.00Sub CriticalPC Existing

IGCC PlusCCS

Retrofit

Existing PCPlus CCSRetrofit

IGCC PlusCCS

Sub CriticalPC New

Sub CriticalPC w ith

FGDRetrof it

SuperCritical PCw ith FGD

Technology

0.00GT Existing CCGT Existing CCGT Future CCGT plus

CCSAdvanced

CCGT

Technology

Non-Fossil Power External Cost

120.00

140.00

160.00

J

2010 w /o CO2 2050 w /o CO2

2010 w ith CO2 2050 w ith CO2 2010 w/o CO2

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Mill

ion

Rs

/ PJ

2050 w/o CO2

2010 with CO2

2050 with CO20.00

Nuclear Plant WindElectricity

Plant

BiomassElectricity

Cogeneration SolarPhotovoltaic

Technology

2050 with CO2

Source :Author’s own estimate using Rafaj and Kypreos , 2007

Business As Usual ResultsPrimary Energy Supply (MTOE)y gy pp y ( )

2000

2500

3000

Coal Oil

Gas Hydro

Nuclear Other Renew ables

1000

1500

Commercial Biomass Non Com Biomass

• Coal dominance in primary

0

500

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

energy as well as powergeneration continues

Electricity Capacity (GW)

1000

1200

RenewableNuclearHydroOilGas

400

600

800GasCoalTotal

0

200

2005 2035 2050 2050

Business As Usual ResultsElectricity Generation (TWh)

5000

6000 Total Coal

Gas Oil

Hydro NuclearWind

2000

3000

4000 Wind

• Enhanced CO2 emissions

0

1000

2005 2035 2050 2050

CO2 E i i (MT)CO2 Emission (MT)

7000

8000

9000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0

1000

2000

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Local Damage Scenario ResultsCoal Power Plants: Technology Transition (GW)

400

500

600

Sub Critical PC w ith FGD-1New

Sub Critical PC w ith FGD-1Retrofit

IGCC-2 +CCS

• Coal technologies with SOxand NOx removal systems

i i200

300

400

Ultra / Super Cr PC (2005-2035)

Adv Sub Cr+DeSOx DeNOx

New PC+CCS Retrofit

SO E i i BAU LDS

come into generation0

100

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Existing PC+CCS Retrofit

Sub Critical PC-1

SOx Emissions: BAU vs LDS

10000

12000

BAU-SOxLDS-SOX 17%

4000

6000

8000

in '0

00 to

nnes

17%

0

2000

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Global Damage Scenario ResultsCoal Technology Trsnition- GD Scenario (GW)

250

300

350

Advanced Coal Electric w ith CCSIGCC-2 +CCS

100

150

200

• Carbon capture technologybecomes competitive

0

50

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

CO2 E i i BAU GDS

becomes competitive

• Carbon capture technologyCO2 Emissions: BAU vs GDS

8000.0

9000.0

10000.0

BAU CO2 24

• Carbon capture technologyin BAU 105 GW

3000.0

4000.0

5000.0

6000.0

7000.0

in '0

00 to

nnes

BAU-CO2GDS-CO2

24%

0.0

1000.0

2000.0

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Nuclear Cooperation ScenarioNuclear Fuel Availability Analysis

Reserve U3O8 (inDescription Life of Mines

Reserve U3O8 (in Tonne) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

A. MININGExisting MinesJaduguda Mines 9 608

Narwapahar Mines 20 4500

Bhatin Mines 7 95

Turamdih Mines 20 3000

Banduhurang Mines 20 10500

i

Existing mines can produce till 2035

Future MinesAP Mines- Tummalapalle+Lambapur-2015 30 8100

Meghalaya Mines-2020 30 10800

Bagjata- 2008 20 900

Mohuldih- 2011 20 900B. MILLINGCurrent Production of U3O8 Tonne per annum 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

Another U3O8 mill getting commissioned (tonne @ annum) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

Assuming one mill at AP tonne @ annum 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200g @

Assuming one mill at Meghalaya tonne @ annum 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

Total U3O8 that can be produced tonne @ annum 200 400 600 800 800 800 800 800 800 800

U3O8 SHORTFALL in tonne per annum 239.6 267.7 329.6 591.5 984.4 1377 1639 2294 2949Installed Capacity- MW 4120 6780 8000 10000 12000 15000 18000 20000 25000 30000

Electricity Production (TwH) per annum 18.046 35.636 45.552 56.94 68.328 85.41 102.49 113.88 142.35 170.82

Amt of U3O8 in tonne required per annum 415.05 819.62 1047.7 1309.6 1571.5 1964.4 2357.3 2619.2 3274.1 3928.9

Amt of U3O8 in gm reqd to produce 1 kWh 0.023

Nuclear Cooperation Scenario ResultsInstalled Capacity GW in "NUCC Case"

800

1000

1200

Biomass Coal

Gas/ Naptha Geothermal

Hydro Nuclear

400

600

Oil Solar

Waste Heat Wind

• Nuclear 300 GW in linewith DAE’s forecast

0

200

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Ad N l T h(GW) t ti i NUCC d

with DAE s forecast

• Fast Breeder ReactorAdvance Nuclear Tech(GW) penetration in NUCC and BAU scenario

225250275300

Advanced Nuclear BAU

• Fast Breeder Reactor(FBR) becomes mainstay

100125150175200 Advanced Nuclear

NUCC

0255075

2005 2020 2035 2050

High Carbon Scenario ResultsCarbon Tax

100

60

80

S $

/tC

O2)

20

40

Price

CO

2 (U

S

• CO2 emission showsdecoupling effect

02010 2020 2030 2040 2050

CO G C

decoupling effect

CO2 Emissions: BAU vs HIGHCARB

8000.0

9000.0

10000.0

BAU CO2

3000.0

4000.0

5000.0

6000.0

7000.0

in '0

00 to

nnes

BAU-CO2HIGHCARB-CO2

0.0

1000.0

2000.0

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Electricity Generation Across Scenarios

Electricity Generation by Fuel7,000

Biomass Coal2050

5,000

6,000 Biomass Coal

Gas/ Naptha Geothermal

Hydro Nuclear

Oil S l

3,000

4,000

TWh

/ Yr

Oil Solar

Waste Heat Wind

2,0002010

-

1,000

ase RB

LDS

GDS

CC ase RB

LDS

GDS

CC

Bas

HIGHCARB

LD GD

NUCC

Bas

HIGHCARB

LD GD

NUCC

Scenarios

Coal Transition in all Scenarios 2050Installed Cap (GW) BAU LDS GDS NUCC HIGHCARB

800

900Installed Cap (GW) BAU LDS GDS NUCC HIGHCARBAdv Sub Cr+DeSOx DeNOx 68 5Ultra / Super Cr PC 475.72SC with FGD Retrofit 10SC with FGD New 10Adv Sub Cr+DeSOx DeNOx 8 58

600

700Adv Sub Cr+DeSOx DeNOx 8.58Adv Coal with CCS 272.7IGCC+CCS 69.5 170.02IGCC 105.6 98.35Super Cr 676.13 441.28

400

500Super Cr

Super

200

300Ultra/ Super Cr IGCC+

CCS

Super Cr

0

100

200

IGCCAdv SC+DeSOx De NOx

Adv Coal +CCS

IGCC

IGCC+ CCS

0BAU LDS GDS NUCC HIGHCARB

De NOx

Primary Energy Supply Across Scenarios

( ) S SPE (Mtoe) Supply in 2050 in Various Scenarios3000

2000

2500 BASE8 LDS

GDS NUCC

HIGHCARB

1500

2000 HIGHCARB

1000

0

500

0Coal Oil Gas Hydro Nuclear Other Ren Total

Research Question 5

l i li d h h lOnce external costs are internalized through alternate packages of policies, measures, and instruments, how do they impact indicators like energy security energy accessthey impact indicators like energy security, energy access

and sustainability?

Impact on indicators like energy security, energy access

and sustainabilityand sustainabilityQ5

Case Analysis

Research Question 5 Framework

New Energy Equilibrium (RQ 2,3,4)

Policy Recommendation on Carbon Dioxide Capture &

Storage (CCS)Storage (CCS)

Case Analysis (RQ 5)

CCS

Case Analysis of CCS with Enhanced Oil RecoveryProposed Pipeline between Power Plants and Oil Fieldoposed pe e be ee o e a s a d O e d

43Km43KmVirajViraj

GEB, GEB,

36Km36KmJholeraJholera

GandhinagarGandhinagar

AEC, Ahmedabad

AEC, Ahmedabad

Proposed Pipeline

Legend

��

ï Oil Wells77 Thermal Power Plants�� Settlements Sabarmati River

Oil FieldSett e e ts Sabarmati River

5% Recovery factor corresponds to 2774 bbl/dcorresponds to 2774 bbl/d6% 3329 bbl/d7% 3884 bbl/d8% 4438 bbl/d9% 4993 bbl/d10% 5548 bbl/d

Parameters

Carbon Dioxide Capture & Storage Supply CurveCO2 (T t l)S l C I diCO2 (Total)Supply Curve - India

140

160

180

100

120

140

ne C

O2)

Deep saline aquifers and basalt formations are so

40

60

80

Cos

t ($/

tonn Deep saline aquifers and basalt formations are soabundant that they create a backstop at about $100-$150 / tCO2

-20

0

20

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Cum CO2 Capacity (GtCO2)Initial low-hanging fruits :EOR andECBM based low cost storage potential.

Conclusions - CCSL C b t & t t f I di 100 150$ / t CO2• Long run Carbon capture & storage cost for India –100-150$ / t CO2

• Additional geological investigation• Pilot Plant should be initiated for learning and preparedness

Data

Findings• Fast introduction of emissions control systems and low-emitting power plants• Internalized external costs : positive global and local environmental impacts• Internalized external costs : positive global and local environmental impacts• Internalization results - energy mix portfolio diversified as opposed to a pure coal

dominance• Primary Energy Supply gets decreasedPrimary Energy Supply gets decreased• Charging the “global” externalities : strong decarbonisation effect• Local Damage Scenario – preferred option• UMPPs and 11th Planned power plants – well placed w.r.t basinsUMPPs and 11th Planned power plants well placed w.r.t basins• Absent a carbon price or some explicit incentive to capture: deployment of CCS• CCS–Energy Security• Carbon mitigation w/o carbon centric, market efficient instrumentsCarbon mitigation w/o carbon centric, market efficient instruments• Cheaper electricity options?• FBR going to mainstay – Plutonium reprocessing augmentation• Electricity generation cost post nuclear dealElectricity generation cost post nuclear deal

Shadow Price of Electricity (Rs/ kWh)

4.00

5.00

6.00 BAU GDS

LDS HIGHCARB

NUCC

CO2 Emission in Various Scenarios

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

BAULDSGDS

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 20500.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

HIGHCARB

Nuc

Policy ImplicationsInformation from this Research What decisions can this improve?

Impacts and costs of fuel cycle(aggregation over all stages of the technologies

Public choice of technologies(e.g. coal vs. nuclear)(aggregation over all stages of the technologies

under consideration)(e.g. coal vs. nuclear)

Impacts and costs of power plant(aggregation over the emissions for each of the

Choice of a new power plant(aggregation over the emissions for each of the technologies under consideration)Impacts and costs of each of the plants in electric grid (aggregation over all stages)

Optimal dispatching of existing plantsg ( gg g g )

Impacts and costs, for each pollutant and each polluter (no aggregation)

Optimization of regulations(emission limits, tradable permits, pollution ( , p , ptaxes)

Costs The “Green Accounting for Indian States &(aggregation over all emission sources in a country)

Union Territories Project” (“GAISP”)(correction of GNP for environmental damage)

Policy Implications

• “Externality Ladder” – tool for sustainable energy

framework

• Institutional and Regulatory Frameworks

d– SPCB, Cap & Trade or Tax

• Initial compliance versus continuing compliance

• UMPPs and 11th plan power plants – “Capture Ready”

• What is in policy maker’s mind : Energy access ,

Energy security or Climate ?

• No Silver bullet

Contribution

• Methodological

– Quantification of external costQuantification of external cost

– Modeling with external costs

• Database

– Environmental database

– Technology databasegy

• CCS Spatial Analysis

• Policy

Future Research

• Epidemiological Studies

• Sustainable Natural Resource exploitation

• Energy & Environment InfrastructureEnergy & Environment Infrastructure

• Sustainable Energy System

• Regional MARKAL Modelling incorporating the

externalities

• Top Down modelling to forecast Green GDP• Top-Down modelling to forecast Green-GDP

Th kThank you